Jump to content


Photo

Hello


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
68 replies to this topic

#41 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 June 2010 - 05:09 AM

I know this will ...erm... raise some eyebrows, but it is relevant to the topic:

http://news.bbc.co.u...nt/10345875.stm

#42 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 June 2010 - 05:31 AM

I'll check that Geode (sorry, I'm a sceptic  :rolleyes: )

View Post


Okay, I checked. Guess what? The person with a Phd in geology knows more about rocks than I do.

How ironic is that. :P

#43 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 07:46 PM

Okay, I checked.  Guess what?  The person with a Phd in geology knows more about rocks than I do.

How ironic is that. ;)

View Post


Did you check with somebody who earned a Phd? Geode is a humble geologist with only a MSc.

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2010 - 12:01 AM

I know this will ...erm... raise some eyebrows, but it is relevant to the topic:

http://news.bbc.co.u...nt/10345875.stm

View Post


So what eyebrows is this suppose to raise?

#45 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 22 June 2010 - 12:54 AM

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited. I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject I thought people might be interested.

#46 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 June 2010 - 10:43 PM

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited.  I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject  I thought people might be interested.

View Post


Oh. It might seem strange but I have no problem with age dating. There is an explanation for it. One that is a little involved.

#47 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 24 June 2010 - 03:25 PM

It mentions C14 dating, which creationists think is discredited.  I don't have a problem with it, personally, and I wouldn't normally post an item about C14 dating on a creationist forum (due to the chance of threads going off topic incereasing with every mention) but as it was put on the BBC website yesterday and it was directly related to this subject  I thought people might be interested.

View Post


"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

#48 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:34 AM

"Frederick Johnson, coworker with Dr. Libby [in the development of, and research into, radiocarbon dating], cites the general correspondence [agreement] of radiocarbon dates to the known ages of various samples taken from tombs, temples, or palaces out of the historical past. Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read (J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, No. 1, 1970). Thus, the meaning of dates by C-14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

View Post


Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

Radiocarbon dating of ancient Egyptian objects is nothing new.

But this time, the scientists say, they were able to use a very precise statistical technique to actually verify the Egyptian history.

"The very first dating done with radiocarbon was dating Egyptian material of known dates, to check that [the method] worked," said Andrew Shortland from Cranfield University in the UK.

"Now, for the very first time, [we] managed to get radiocarbon techniques so good, that we can do it completely the opposite way around. We can say, from using radiocarbon, whether the Egyptian history is correct or not.

"Previously radiocarbon hasn't had a voice on this because the errors had been so great. Now radiocarbon is able to distinguish between different ideas of reconstructing the history."



#49 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 25 June 2010 - 10:58 AM

Sometimes in science a decade can see quite a bit of improvement in techniques. This is the claim made here. Your source from 40 years ago had possibly been superceded, at least according to the report just released that Phil linked. In it one can read:

View Post


No exact dates are provided. Secondly, mainstream egyptologists and archeologists date Menes to 2900BC.

The oldest civilizations Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Greece, China are only a few thousand years old.

According to evolutionists man has been on earth for millions or hundred's of thousands of years, why is it then civilization is only a few thousand years old?

#50 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:09 PM

Modern humans have been around for about 135,000 years, not millions. Obviously that is still a long time.

The first cities arose about 8,000 BCE according to archaeology. Why no sooner? The Ice age finished about 10,000 BCE. That means there is a 2,000 year gap between the end of the ice age and the earliest cities.

Large communities may have existed before that, though.

Menes - 2,900 BCE. Flood - 2,300BCE. There is a problem there anyway. Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

#51 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 25 June 2010 - 01:41 PM

Modern humans have been around for about 135,000 years, not millions.  Obviously that is still a long time.


What do you mean by modern humans? Humans in their current form?

The first cities arose about 8,000 BCE according to archaeology.


Watch the following video:



Why no sooner?  The Ice age finished about 10,000 BCE.  That means there is a 2,000 year gap between the end of the ice age and the earliest cities.


Sorry but this is wrong. We have historical accounts of the Ice Age.

http://ldolphin.org/...er/appen14.html

Menes - 2,900 BCE.  Flood - 2,300BCE.  There is a problem there anyway.


We have no problem.

The very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king.

The date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has lowered with the passing of time:

Champollian: 5867 B.C. / Lesueur: 5770 B.C. / Unger: 5613 B.C. / Mariette: 5004 B.C. / Brugsch: 4455 B.C. / Lauth: 4157 B.C. / Chabas: 4000 B.C. / Lapsius: 3890 B.C. / Bunsen: 3623 B.C. / Breasted: 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff : 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer: 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson: 2320 B.C. / Palmer: 2224 B.C.

Note the two last figures closely fit with the Biblical chronology.

Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.


Evolutionist assumption. :rolleyes:

#52 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:10 AM

Plus there were people living in Egypt before Menes.

Evolutionist assumption. 


This is just insulting. It's a complete misrepresentation.

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

#53 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 June 2010 - 01:57 AM

This is just insulting.  It's a complete misrepresentation.

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

View Post


Consider the source.

#54 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:05 AM

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

View Post


You were there 5,000+ years back to observe it then? Where is this time machine?

All you are giving me is evolution assumptions.

#55 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:08 AM

This is just insulting.  It's a complete misrepresentation.

Our understanding is based on evidence, not assumption.

View Post


Again you ignored my links and videos...

Also may i ask what degree you have in history? Presuming you have one?

#56 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:25 AM

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy. I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens. Have you read his book? You are ignoring sources.

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it. The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time. Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make. If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents. Scotland and half of England were covered. Why does no other account mention it.

Plus: "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

How reliable is this source?

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

What is the mainstream view on Egypt? What evidence is used to back that up?

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

#57 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:11 AM

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy.  I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.

Get one or two sources that are dubious and ignore the rest.

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens.  Have you read his book?  You are ignoring sources.

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it.  The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time.  Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make.  If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents.  Scotland and half of England were covered.  Why does no other account mention it.

Plus:  "where firstly we are told that during Partholan's coming to Ireland (15th century BC) he counted 'but three laughs [lochs or lakes] and nyne Rivers in the Kingdom'. (1) But then, during the later second colonisation of Ireland, we are told that 'Many Laughs and Rivers broke out in their time'"

How reliable is this source?

Your whole arguments seem to be based on just picking and choosing your sources to fit your preconceptions.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

What is the mainstream view on Egypt?  What evidence is used to back that up?

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?

View Post


Phil,

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

Cheers, Geode

#58 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:23 AM

I am guessing you are using the Von Daniken fallacy.  I've now read the source about the Irish and that seems to be your position.


We have eyewitness testimony of when the Ice Age occurred. That Irish article by Bill Cooper is just one of many.

But you don't accept historical accounts, over evolutionist assumption right? Because you were there back then to observe...As i said where is this time-machine?

Von Daniken said that the pyramids were built by aliens.  Have you read his book?  You are ignoring sources.


Who debunked Daniken's nutty theory?

http://creationwiki....Clifford_Wilson

YEC's did like Clifford Wilson in his book Crash Go the Chariots (1972).

Underneath the levels of the time of the kings in Egypt there are levels where different tools and implements are used.


Yes, but it's then evolutionist assumption to believe since they are at the lower level they are older.

The fact that archaeology has shown they are underneath the layers of deposits left by the people of the first king shows that they were alive before it.


Evolutionist assumption. :rolleyes:

The development of tools etc shows that technology was progressing through time.  Each layer can be identified by the technology found in it.


Evolutionist assumption (again...).

This isn't assumption, it is evidence.


:lol:

Also, one iceberg does not an ice age make.  If the ice age was within documented history then it would be seen in many other documents.  Scotland and half of England were covered.  Why does no other account mention it.


They do, have a look around.

How reliable is this source?


The Annals of Clonmacnoise? You can find Connell McGeoghegan's manuscript translation of this Irish Chronicle in the British Museum.

It shatters your world-view of course, since the chronicle supports Young Earth Creation, as do thousands of other chronicles.

What is the mainstream view on the Ice Age? What evidence is used to back that up?

There is no 'mainstream view' on the Ice Age since the dates have bever been decided for when it occured.

What is the mainstream view on Egypt?  What evidence is used to back that up?


The mainstream view of egypt is that Menes was the first king around 2,900BC, yet this date is being reduced all the time supporting Ussher's dating.

I'm not interested in fringe opinions (at the moment, let us find out what the mainstream view is first and then we can compaare), just what is the mainstream view?


Why call yourself a skeptic then? As i said you aren't a skeptic at all, you only believe what you are told or what the majority believe in. Why not explore the evidence as an individual? A true skeptic doubt everything at first and then comes to a conclusion based on his independant research.

#59 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:28 AM

I can't explore the evidence, I don't have a degree.

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 June 2010 - 08:37 AM

Phil,

How can you keep on posting about this historical subject if you lack a degree in history? I don't think Cassiterides has a degree in history either, and I don't even though I minored in the subject. I guess we should just let this thread die until somebody with a degree in history shows up.

Cheers, Geode

View Post


it's best not to make assumptions about people you don't know. And making it personal like you have with the snide remark at the end. If you do not like debating someone you can click on their name then click ignore and their posts will disappear so you don't have to read them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users