Did you know that the Earth is only 6,000 years old??!!

[clk]

This website is pretty funny: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

Apparently it's a serious Christian website. They argue that dinosaurs were contemporary to man, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that carbon dating is the work of the devil. It's funny, because they try to use science to rebut all counter-arguments...the irony is amazing.

I didn't think there were many Christians who actually believed this stuff, but I guess I was wrong.

Anyways, now atleast we know what happens when you give internet access to a bunch of Bush supporters...

[Ducky]

One section is called the "Historocity of Jesus."

What the heck is that?

This guy's a loon. Have you watched the media player clip of how 9/11 is bible predicted? What a tool.

[Taffer]

I like his quote to "the scientists" that found the "new" dinosaur bones. It reads like a work of fiction. No honest scientist would report their findings in such an obviously embellished way. What a loon.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by fowlsound
One section is called the "Historocity of Jesus."

What the heck is that?


I looked at the site and it read "Historicity," not "Historocity."

Anyway, to answer your question, if a person has "historicity," that means that the person actually existed at some time in history.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by clk
This website is pretty funny: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

Apparently it's a serious Christian website. They argue that dinosaurs were contemporary to man, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that carbon dating is the work of the devil. It's funny, because they try to use science to rebut all counter-arguments...the irony is amazing.

I didn't think there were many Christians who actually believed this stuff, but I guess I was wrong.

Anyways, now atleast we know what happens when you give internet access to a bunch of Bush supporters...

Yes, these claims have been around for quite some time and now with the power of the Internet these fruit loops can readily disseminate their nonsense to millions and millions for very little cost and effort.

Go figure!

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jjramsey
I looked at the site and it read "Historicity," not "Historocity."

Anyway, to answer your question, if a person has "historicity," that means that the person actually existed at some time in history.


Sorry about the typo.

Thanks for the clarifacation. I really thought he had started making words up...

Then again, my vocab is not the best out there...

[Zep]

Whatever they call it, it's remarkably thin in content, all of it has been discussed to death for hundreds of years, and none of it would stand up in court as evidence.

Cheap content-free rhetoric for the dummies. But at least it's a better designed website than some of it's contemporaries.

[Kopji]

I think they need to spend more time refuting 'natural history' things like plate tectonics. They seem to be ignoring that as if it does not completely refute their young earth creationist timeline.

Simple little things, like the San Francisco volcanic field in Arizona. Essentially a line of volcanoes about 200 miles long where the older ones are in the west, while very recent ones are in the east.

Science explains it by saying the earth's crust is moving over a hotspot inside the earth. Visible differences in erosion between the westernmost and easternmost are enough to show the impossibility of a 6000 year old earth.

[Dubium]

What a preposterous load of nonsense. According to the aforementioned website, Adam was probably 'red' because God created him out of red earth. Does this mean Eden was in North West Australia? Or perhaps Adam was actually a Sioux Indian and Eden was somewhere in North America.

Hang on - isn't the devil supposed to be red? Now I'm confused :D

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Dubium
What a preposterous load of nonsense. According to the aforementioned website, Adam was probably 'red' because God created him out of red earth.

Evidently God is incapable of removing impurities from his materials.


Originally posted by Kopji
Simple little things, like the San Francisco volcanic field in Arizona. Essentially a line of volcanoes about 200 miles long where the older ones are in the west, while very recent ones are in the east.


Nah, he foresaw the existence of Wile E. Coyote chasing the Roadrunner in hillarious cartoons, so he had to set up the old volcano cores for Warner Bros. to use some day.

[thatguywhojuggles]

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemId=550

Navara brought it back, where the age of the beam was measured to be between four and five thousand years old. The scriptures' account of Noah's Ark took place approximately 4,500 years ago.



I wonder if they used carbon dating to discover the age of the beam?

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
I wonder if they used carbon dating to discover the age of the beam?

They did: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html

The wood was too young, only roughly 1300 years old.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jjramsey
They did: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html

The wood was too young, only roughly 1300 years old. And you don't see the irony of juxtaposing these two points??

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Zep
And you don't see the irony of juxtaposing these two points??

What irony? 2,000 years ago would be about when Jesus of Nazareth was born. The Noahic flood was supposed to happen well before that event, so 1,300 years old is certainly too young a date for a piece of wood that is supposed to have been part of the ark.

[Zep]

Let me explain:

Creationists loath and detest carbon-dating with a passion. It is one of their great bugbears because it proves conclusively that the 6000-year-old Earth is definitely a fable. They say it is a grossly incorrect and unscientific method of determining ages of objects. They cite all sorts of made up guff, and accentuate documented problems with it, in order to thoroughly villify the process. To them, it is the spawn of Satan, quite literally, and they refuse to have any truck with it whatsoever.

And yet they are quite willing to accept, unquestioningly and without so much as a squeak of outrage, the accuracy of a carbon-dated age of some ancient lump of lumber that has the possibility (according to them) of being from Noah's ark. Then again, Noah's ark is another of their "proofs" of a young earth...

I think the appellation "ironic" is richly deserved, don't you?

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Zep
Creationists loath and detest carbon-dating with a passion. . . .

And yet they are quite willing to accept, unquestioningly and without so much as a squeak of outrage, the accuracy of a carbon-dated age of some ancient lump of lumber that has the possibility (according to them) of being from Noah's ark. Then again, Noah's ark is another of their "proofs" of a young earth . . .

There's nothing in that TalkOrigins page (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html) about whether creationists have accepted the date or not. Apparently, they tried to use other less reliable dating methods in order to get older dates.

Zep, are you under the impression that TalkOrigins is a creationist web site?

[HarryKeogh]

Earth is only 6,000 years old and everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, geology and cosmology is wrong.

Deal with it, heathens!

[Zep]

Originally posted by jjramsey
There's nothing in that TalkOrigins page (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH504_2.html) about whether creationists have accepted the date or not. Apparently, they tried to use other less reliable dating methods in order to get older dates.

Zep, are you under the impression that TalkOrigins is a creationist web site? I'm well aware what TalkOrigins is - I was there long before I was here.

Yes, Creationists DO accept scientific datings without question of the method IF the datings seemingly support one of their crackpot notions. Note the important qualifier. I have seen this happen in the past, but I couldn't lay my hands on the exact evidence right now (and frankly I couldn't be bothered). And if the dating doesn't meet their requirements, and this is usual, they do indeed try to fudge the results by quite amazing contortions to match what they WANT them to be. It's quite amazing the denial process they will go through.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Zep
Creationists DO accept scientific datings without question of the method IF the datings seemingly support one of their crackpot notions.

And this is supposed to be news to me?

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by clk
This website is pretty funny: http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

Apparently it's a serious Christian website. They argue that dinosaurs were contemporary to man, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that carbon dating is the work of the devil. It's funny, because they try to use science to rebut all counter-arguments...the irony is amazing.

I didn't think there were many Christians who actually believed this stuff, but I guess I was wrong.

Anyways, now atleast we know what happens when you give internet access to a bunch of Bush supporters...
Not all Christians are willing to blindly believe anything with out it being able to be verified. There are many of us who know God is the God of the Christian Bible and Jesus is exactly who he said he is (that is verifiable to us), but we do not necessarily believe that the Christians who believe the earth is between 12 and 6 thousand years old have it right either. I know Jesus is real and he is my savior and Lord. I trust him completely. It will all be made clear to us in Heaven if we have not discovered all the truth about creation and the time involved while we are here on the earth in this life.

Although I am a layman, I am learning as much as I can about radioactive dating techniques. It is very interesting to me. I also studied astrophysics in college, so with what we know about that science as well, it points to an old universe and earth. I don’t have a problem with that, nor do many Christians. Do I believe in creation? Absolutely. Do I believe the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of God with out a single contradiction? Absolutely. Do I have to stretch, distort, change, fudge any of scripture to maintain my faith? Absolutely not.

It is not God’s nature to deceive us. So if the earth is young, science has made some serious mistakes. If the earth really is young, I don’t have a problem with it. If God wanted to do it that way he could. And if he did, we are the ones who are misinterpreting the data. If it is old, I don’t have a problem with that either. There is nothing in scripture that demands that the earth has to be young for scripture to be true in my opinion. Many Christians believe you have to interpret the Hebrew word “Yom� (day) as a litteral 24 hour period always. I presented my argument against this using a scriptural basis in another thread on this forum. They believe that Yom in Genesis has to be days that are 24 hours long, I don’t agree at this time. But if I am wrong and it is six 24 hour days, it still doesn’t matter. What matters is that the Lord did create everything. If he took a long time to us, or he didn’t, it does not change the truth of scripture, it did happen just like scripture says. Jesus himself, the second person of the Godhead is the creator, that does not change. For the Bible to be true, the discussion of an old or young earth has no real bearing; in my opinion it doesn’t matter.

Many people on both sides of the issue whether Christianity is true or not are way too gullible. They are willing to believe something just because it sounded credible with out doing their own homework. Both sides are guilty of this. Lots of kooks are on the internet, write goofy books, produce loony TV shows. So as long as you are not only picking on people who call them selves Christians, and you pick on anybody who presents kooky stuff, you are being fair. If you are only picking on Christians, then you are being prejudice.

The Bible tell us to test everything in light of scripture, not to believe any Christian teaching unless we can verify it in scripture. The Bible also warns us that there are lots of false teachers, counterfeit Christians (wolves in sheep’s clothing) and types of antichrists in the world. I have not read this guy’s site so I don’t know if he is a guy I would call a false teacher that teaches heresy or not. He might be a Christian kook, he might fall within the pale of orthodoxy. Either way, I encourage you to be open and honestly ask the Lord Jesus to show you that he is real and alive today.

[timokay]

Christian Dude, how do you feel about Harold Camping?

http://www.familyradio.com/english/connect/bio/bio_haroldcamping.html

To any of you unfamilar, or who do not wish to click on the link, Mr. Camping preaches the literal interpretation of the Bible, young earth and all, and in fact says that we are in the last stages of the Great Tribulation, and that the earth will end in 2011. He broadcasts out of Oakland, CA, and there are archives of his radio show, which are a fascinating listen. He takes on all callers, skeptic and believers, and defends his positions.

It should be noted that he previously stated that the world would end in 1999, but like a trooper, did not let a little thing like being 100% wrong stop him from taking another whack at it.

Each morning there is a short program called Science and Creation moments, that is also a hoot.

Joe Bob says check it out.

[headscratcher4]

Ok, for amusement's sake, I was looking at his proofs for Noah and the Ark. He speaks about an Arrart explorer who brought down large beams of wood from an area too high on the mountain, so he says, to be natural. This wood is determined to be 5000 years old...putting it right in the time of Noah! A Ha! Proof!

My assumption is that we know that the wood is 5,000 years old (if the wood exists outside of the looney-toon archeology that goes on on Mt. Arrarat) because of carbon dating.

Can anyone tell me, can you tell the age of wood (if you don't know when it was cut) by any other method?

I ask this because he also has a long section pointing out how Carbon Dating is wrong and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

So, carbon dating works when you want to have proof that a piece of wood from Mount Arrarat fits with the Noah story, but it doesn't work when it comes to determining that life on earth is older than 6,000 years old.

Am I missing something here? Seems a tad inherently and internally inconsistent. DOn't know why I hold this loon to any standard at all, but does he just ignore contradictions that he doesn't like?

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by timokay
Christian Dude, how do you feel about Harold Camping?

http://www.familyradio.com/english/connect/bio/bio_haroldcamping.html

To any of you unfamilar, or who do not wish to click on the link, Mr. Camping preaches the literal interpretation of the Bible, young earth and all, and in fact says that we are in the last stages of the Great Tribulation, and that the earth will end in 2011. He broadcasts out of Oakland, CA, and there are archives of his radio show, which are a fascinating listen. He takes on all callers, skeptic and believers, and defends his positions.

It should be noted that he previously stated that the world would end in 1999, but like a trooper, did not let a little thing like being 100% wrong stop him from taking another whack at it.

Each morning there is a short program called Science and Creation moments, that is also a hoot.

Joe Bob says check it out.
Unfortunately I know Harold Camping’s teaching’s. In my opinion he is a false teacher and false profit and teaches heresy. He predicted Christ would return in 1994. Christ obviously did not and no true profit is ever wrong about any prophecy, ever, period. I believe he and men like him hurt the cause of Christ and wish they would fall off the face of the earth. Fortunately for him and others like him, I am not God and have no power or authority to do anything to them other than counter their false teachings. I don’t know his heart because I am not God, and that is why all I can do is tell people about, and demonstrate through scripture, his false teachings. If I was God, he would be in big trouble this very moment.

[jan]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Can anyone tell me, can you tell the age of wood (if you don't know when it was cut) by any other method?

I ask this because he also has a long section pointing out how Carbon Dating is wrong and the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I suggest the wikipedia article on Dendrochronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology). In one specific area (Rhein-Main), it is possible to trace the ring structures of trees back to 10.461 B.C. (so much about a 6K years old earth).

I doubt that it is possible to go back a comparable amount of time for the area in question, though.

[supercorgi]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Can anyone tell me, can you tell the age of wood (if you don't know when it was cut) by any other method?

In certain parts of the world, dendrochronology (tree-ring dataing) is very useful for dating both historic and pre-historic sites. I can't remember the specifics, but in some places the archaeologists have compiled tree-ring series that go back up to 9,000 years depending on the species of tree.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
My assumption is that we know that the wood is 5,000 years old (if the wood exists outside of the looney-toon archeology that goes on on Mt. Arrarat) because of carbon dating.

As pointed out earlier in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871029613#post1871029613), this assumption is wrong.

[Ducky]

Absolutely. Do I have to stretch, distort, change, fudge any of scripture to maintain my faith? Absolutely not.


I believe there are several threads dealing with this right now, but I don't see too many responses from Christian Dude.

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=61747&goto=newpost)

Or this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=61204&goto=newpost)

Or this one. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=60851&goto=newpost)

Care to comment on the contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out there?

I think if you don't have to distort, stretch change or fudge any of the scripture you're not employing one iota of critical thinking skills.