Jump to content


Photo

Baseless Assumptions In History


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

#21 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New mexico

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:17 PM

And this makes your whole post an assumption, and quite possibly incorrect at best.  You claim that all matter came from the big bang... this is absolutely begging the question, or a lot more questions really.

What banged?

Where did the matter to be banged come from?

Do you have pictures of this bang?

Do you have hands on evidence of this bang? 

Your only answer would most likely have to be that it magically poofed into existance, as the big bang is all about... or the Great Expansion for the Liberal Atheist politically correct word.

View Post


I wasn't asserting that the big bang happened, only correcting the poster's misconception of what was created per the theory itself. I think if we are all going to be arguing these things the least we can do is understand what they say.

#22 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • State College, PA

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:00 PM

Catterling,

I'm still waiting for you to show me the "original authors dates" on the writings.

View Post


You seem to be expecting an original author to give a date for a BC event in terms which require zero outside interpretation — interpretation such as comparison to other dates . (The main point of my last writing was that chronologists work by comparing dates given by different contemporary reporters, and stacking those dates to build chronologies; they don't pick a single reporter and trust his every word.)

But the only way for that to happen would be for the contemporary writer to literally say something like "this battle occurred in 3250 BC"! Any other way of putting it would require that we connect the date to some other chronology, which means going outside the "original author's dates", if only to the dates of an author next door.

I now how two questions for you:

1. What methods do you believe that archaeologists and historians like Sir Arthur Evans use to date things like the Minoan civilizations? I don't care so much of how valuable you think those methods are or aren't, just what you think they are.

2. What is the reason/excuse archaeologists give for there being discrepant dates, and why is this reason wrong?

3. I contend that at least one of Jesus's paternal ancestors was alive for half a million years before he fathered any sons. Without making any

assumptions,

but instead taking the supposedly assumption-free route of Biblical literalism, how do you prove this wrong?

Finally, I will say that, so far as I can tell, the Minoan civilization did not have writing, so there are no written historical accounts of it. This is what made me curious what creationists feel would be a good way of dating the civilization, given that if they used any method used by the relevant scientists, they would arrive at too-large numbers.

#23 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 25 September 2010 - 03:45 AM

First off, I need to correct myself when I said:

I meant "four thousand", the key thing being that written history approaches the proposed years of the Flood, and therefore overlaps with the Tower of Babel. This is problematic.


So you are just backing up one of our YEC arguments. Written history only began around 4,000 years ago. Evolutionists however believe man (in whatever form) have been on the Earth for millions. So why the huge gap? Why did it take man millions of years, and then one day suddenly he just began to documentate his history? It's not logical, this is just one of many flaws in the evolution model of man's origins.

Please show me the exact date in the Bible that puts the creation somewhere near 4000 BC.


The Masoretic Text puts the figure around 4000BC. See my thread here:
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3679

3761 BC - Is the date of the creation on the Hebrew Calander. Note: 3924 BC is usually given as the revised Jewish Calander date of creation. So why do these dates slightly differ to the 4000BC date? Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones (an expert in Old Testament chronology) has explained:

e0abCkMSPeI?fs=1&hl=en_GB

You can't, of course, so what Biblical innerantists do, reasonably enough, is to add together the various years between the various described events (namely births). Wherever there is a gap, such as the length of a person's life not being given, they make some reasonable

assumptions


Which is quite acceptable since we know those people or events existed. We are free to make assumptions and hypotheses from the established facts. The theory of evolution though starts at assumption.

Secondly, in order for the young-Earth model to be true, written historical accounts from all over the world would have to be consistently false, not just occasionally exaggerating some pharaoh's reign. It would require a conspiracy not only between warring nations, but between nations which never encountered one another. Mere bias does not account for something so widespread.


Well you've contradicted yourself, in your earlier post you said written history only goes back 4,000 years. That figure is evidence for the YEC model. Yet, now you are saying ''written historical accounts from all over the world would have to be consistently false''. Looks like you need to make up your mind.

#24 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 25 September 2010 - 07:04 AM

All matter came from the big bang. As chemistry has taught us matter can change form under different, usually extreme, circumstances. The Universe is 99.5% hydrogen and helium. The two simplest atoms in the periodic chart. The elements heavier than helium are formed in one of two ways. Elements up to carbon can be formed inside the cores of large stars just through fusion. Everything, and I mean everything, heavier than carbon can only be created during a supernova. It is when these isotopes are formed in the supernova they start decaying. 

Dating isn't measured by how much is left, rather it is done by looking at the ratio of the parent and daughter elements left in a specimen. Take K40-Ar dating for example. Most K40 is found in the mantle of the Earth and so is reliable for dating rocks. Why? Well, Argon being a gas does not stay close to the K40 as it decays in liquid magma. However, once the rocks harden the Argon has no place to go. Still with me? The scientist melt the rock in a vacuum and look at it through a spectrometer. Through the reading they can see how much Argon was trapped in the rock and how much K40 is present. They can then compare the ratio of K40 to Argon to get a reliable age.

In essence it does not matter in the slightest how much of the K40 decayed away before the rock solidified. It only matters how much decayed after the rock was formed.

View Post


So it does not matter that all matter was spread across the universe 13-15 billion years ago. Only that the dating markers are there after matter becomes solid. Still a flaw.

Example: The earth is really 13-15 billion years old because it matter came from the big bang, right? But since that is not factored in, the earth is only 4.6 billion because that's when it cooled down enough to leave dating markers.

So which is correct?

1) The matter is as old as the universe because it came from how the universe was created?
2) The matter can only be as old as it's age dating markers regardless of where it came from, or how old it's origins are?

#25 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • State College, PA

Posted 25 September 2010 - 07:46 AM

Why did it take man millions of years, and then one day suddenly he just began to documentate his history?


Why did it take humans thousands up years, and than one day suddenly they began an industrial revolution? What outside force caused it? None. To this day, many cultures are non-industrial, just like many cultures just plain didn't develop a written language.

Writing is just an invention, like spectacles or flying buttresses. By your line of argument about it, we ought to be surprised that any given development hasn't existed for all time. (If you are as truly curious about what scholars think as I am about what YECs think, there are some good sources to be found on the Web. Basically, the development of writing was prompted by economics, its usefulness in recording property for the exchange of goods.)

Anyway, the Bible doesn't give an origin of written language, either, only the divergence of spoken ones. (I just realized that, if I'm not mistaken, the YEC model requires that all those cultures which scholars say never developed any writing must have once had some sort of written language, then lost it. Actually, a mysterious collective loss of numerous technologies is a necessary part of the whole story, since every known culture is supposed to have arisen from a Middle-East ark-building culture within the last five thousand years. Wow.)

The Masoretic Text puts the figure around 4000BC.


Really? Where does it give a single precise date in terms that require zero synchronizing with other known events? In which verse in Genesis does the author give an exact number of years prior to Jesus's birth? It doesn't. Bishop Ussher and all the others have had to match up the numbers with known historical events, just like chronologists do when they find results that creationists don't like.

One thing they don't like about those results is their seeming imprecision, or inability to make up their minds. For example, when different scholars give distinct dates like:

3400–2800 (Evans)
2600–2300 (Matz)
2500–2400 (Hutchinson)
3200–2600 (Gimbutas)
3000–2600 (Willetts, Hood)
2800–2200 (Mackenzie
2600–2000 (Matz)


or

4192 BC - Marianus Scotus
4060 BC - Isaac Newton
4051 BC- Henri Spondanus
4002 BC - Augustin Calmet
3992 BC - Johannes Kepler
3984 BC - Petavius
3966 BC - Christen Longomontanus
3964 BC - Melanchthon
3951 BC - Martin Luther
3952 BC - Venerable Bede
3949 BC - Joseph Justus Scaliger
3761 BC - Hebrew Calander
3751 BC - Seder Olam Rabbah
3616 BC - Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller


Oh, wait…

Well you've contradicted yourself, in your earlier post you said written history only goes back 4,000 years. That figure is evidence for the YEC model. Yet, now you are saying ''written historical accounts from all over the world would have to be consistently false''.


I'm not just talking about the existence of writing, but what the accounts actually say. None mention anything like Babel, for example.

These days, what I'm mainly curious about is to what degree YECs think that archaeologists, historians, geologists, biologists, cosmologists, physicists, and theologians are just plain making it up, and to what extent YECs believe those folks are simply misinterpreting the data (for example, by "assuming" constant rates of decay, or "assuming" the general reliably of ancient histories especially when they converge with one another, etc).

#26 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 25 September 2010 - 10:04 AM

(If you are as truly curious about what scholars think as I am about what YECs think, there are some good sources to be found on the Web. Basically, the development of writing was prompted by economics, its usefulness in recording property for the exchange of goods.)


You are dishonestly equating evolutionists only to scholars here, when in actual fact many scholars believe in Young Earth Creationism.

There are both creationist and evolutionist scholars, not just the latter.

(I just realized that, if I'm not mistaken, the YEC model requires that all those cultures which scholars say never developed any writing must have once had some sort of written language, then lost it. Actually, a mysterious collective loss of numerous technologies is a necessary part of the whole story, since every known culture is supposed to have arisen from a Middle-East ark-building culture within the last five thousand years. Wow.)


And that's what all the evidence supports. Ancient legends and historical writings from across the world tell of a primordial 'Golden Age'. This appears in ancient Greek, Roman, Chinese, Babylonian, Indian, Norse etc mythology. All ancients didn't believe they evolved but that they degenerated from a once greater cultural height. Ancient testimonies repeat this universal tradition of a 'fall'; which is best found explained in Genesis.

Really? Where does it give a single precise date in terms that require zero synchronizing with other known events? In which verse in Genesis does the author give an exact number of years prior to Jesus's birth? It doesn't. Bishop Ussher and all the others have had to match up the numbers with known historical events, just like chronologists do when they find results that creationists don't like.


Nope that's false. We easily get the 4,000BC estimate from the genealogies found in Genesis. You then just count back, and since we have firm established dates it is easy to do so.

Evolutionists however believe the earth is billions of years, but have no evidence for this. It is pure assumption. No one has a time-machine to back up these figures which precede the recorded history of man.

I'm not just talking about the existence of writing, but what the accounts actually say. None mention anything like Babel, for example.


:)

Babel is found mentioned in hundreds of classical sources outside of the Bible.

Edit: I can list these sources if you want.

These days, what I'm mainly curious about is to what degree YECs think that archaeologists, historians, geologists, biologists, cosmologists, physicists, and theologians are just plain making it up, and to what extent YECs believe those folks are simply misinterpreting the data (for example, by "assuming" constant rates of decay, or "assuming" the general reliably of ancient histories especially when they converge with one another, etc).


More dishonesty. There are YEC archeologists, historians, geologists, biologists, cosmologists etc.

What you are attempting to do is attack/discredit creationism by dishonestly implying it has no academic support, when in actual fact there are thousands of scholars and professors who believe in YEC. How do i know? I meet some of them in my university. Yep, we are in universities. :lol: Looks like you've been reading too much evolutionist propaganda that portrays creationists as dumb hicks.

#27 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • State College, PA

Posted 25 September 2010 - 11:05 AM

We easily get the 4,000BC estimate from the genealogies found in Genesis. You then just count back


That's exactly what I was talking about. You, a person who is not a Bible writer, have to do this counting back. That's an interpretation that relies on uniformitarian assumptions, as I will show in a bit.

and since we have firm established dates it is easy to do so.


Using YEC standards, no, you do not have "firm established dates". At some point, you have to assume things, even though when non-creationists tackle these matters, zero "assumptions" are allowed except for "The Bible is correct in all particulars."

Just one assumption YEC makes is that none of Jesus's ancestors lived for a hundred thousand years. Where does the Bible dispute that, except by omission? Another is that relativity doesn't create numerous portals between different places in spacetime, which, if it occurred, would naturally wreak havoc for both creationist and non-creationist chronologies, without their even knowing it. Why don't you or they consider that possibility, apart from plain old bias against it?

(The reason my examples are so absurd is to parallel the YEC claims of accelerated light, accelerated decay, massive loss by almost every single culture of writing and all the other remnants of the Golden Age of All Humanity, etc.)

Why is it acceptable for people like Bishop Ussher to make educated guesses about people's lifetimes wherever the Bible fails to give any number whatsoever, basing these assumptions on how long people are known to live… but not okay for archaeologists to assume that the physics of carbon decay worked the same way in the past as they do now? Or to assume the moderate reliability of various historical accounts? Or to calibrate their findings with the findings of astronomers, geologists, historical climatologists, etc? The YEC chronology calibrates with things like the known reign of Herod in order to work out Jesus's birth, etc. It does not merely go by the witness of Scripture.

Babel is found mentioned in hundreds of classical sources outside of the Bible. I don't think ancient history is an area you have studied before?


I absolutely stand corrected. I just looked it up, and yes, as with the deluge motif, there are Babel-type stories in a fair number of cultures, especially those in and near the Middle East. My bad.

That said, the notion that all languages were "created" at once is still in total contrast to what comparative linguistics (which, I am sure, is yet another field whose primary motivation is debunking the Tanakh) has to say.

What you are attempting to do is attack/discredit creationism by dishonestly implying it has no academic support, when in actual fact there are thousands of scholars and professors who believe in YEC. How do i know? I meet some of them in my university. Yep, we are in universities.  Looks like you've been reading too much evolutionist propaganda that portrays creationists as dumb hicks.


The number of accredited experts in relevant fields who are also YECists is so low it may as well be ignored completely, like the number of accredited doctors who accept homeopathy. Creationism does not inform any scholarship, and does not remotely mesh with other scholarly findings — instead, almost every single other academic field must be squished and stretched beyond the breaking point in order for YEC to work. In addition, no correct specific predictions have been made from a creationist model, unlike with actual cosmology, physics, geology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, and history (or as creationists prefer to collectively label them, "evolutionism"). So I'm going to stick with this distinction.

No, creationists are not "dumb", they are just as intelligent as everyone else. Which makes me sad.

Edited by Catterling, 25 September 2010 - 11:09 AM.


#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 September 2010 - 12:04 PM

Catterling,

You haven't shown the Biblical geneologies as being half a million years apart. That's completely taking the words out of context. You can count the geneologies all the way to Christ, and when you add everything up, it will be about 4,000 years.

Of course I'm not going to accept your assumptions or any other persons assumptions that something which has no written dates is a solid fact that they are either 100,000 or over a million years old. That would just be completely illogical. Indeed I'm not looking for B.C., I'm looking for collaborating evidence from different sources from the same time period. Besides, like you, I must have faith that these dates are the correct age, because I can't say whether or not they are if no one was around to place them.

Could you site the verse in Genesis, or any book in the Bible that states someone lived over 100,000 years??? Sorry but you won't find it. Methuselah was the oldest living human at 969 (that's not a YEC assumption, that's actually written in the Bible) years.

Your argument has already failed, because you are attempting to say that by adding up the geneologies that you will get an age way greater than 4,000. That's simply impossible, either that or your completely taking the Bible out of Context.

#29 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 25 September 2010 - 12:08 PM

That's exactly what I was talking about. You, a person who is not a Bible writer, have to do this counting back. That's an interpretation that relies on uniformitarian assumptions, as I will show in a bit.
Using YEC standards, no, you do not have "firm established dates". At some point, you have to assume things, even though when non-creationists tackle these matters, zero "assumptions" are allowed except for "The Bible is correct in all particulars."

Just one assumption YEC makes is that none of Jesus's ancestors lived for a hundred thousand years. Where does the Bible dispute that, except by omission? Another is that relativity doesn't create numerous portals between different places in spacetime, which, if it occurred, would naturally wreak havoc for both creationist and non-creationist chronologies, without their even knowing it. Why don't you or they consider that possibility, apart from plain old bias against it?

(The reason my examples are so absurd is to parallel the YEC claims of accelerated light, accelerated decay, massive loss by almost every single culture of writing and all the other remnants of the Golden Age of All Humanity, etc.)

Why is it acceptable for people like Bishop Ussher to make educated guesses about people's lifetimes wherever the Bible fails to give any number whatsoever, basing these assumptions on how long people are known to live… but not okay for archaeologists to assume that the physics of carbon decay worked the same way in the past as they do now? Or to assume the moderate reliability of various historical accounts? Or to calibrate their findings with the findings of astronomers, geologists, historical climatologists, etc? The YEC chronology calibrates with things like the known reign of Herod in order to work out Jesus's birth, etc. It does not merely go by the witness of Scripture.
I absolutely stand corrected. I just looked it up, and yes, as with the deluge motif, there are Babel-type stories in a fair number of cultures, especially those in and near the Middle East. My bad.

That said, the notion that all languages were "created" at once is still in total contrast to what comparative linguistics (which, I am sure, is yet another field whose primary motivation is debunking the Tanakh) has to say.
The number of accredited experts in relevant fields who are also YECists is so low it may as well be ignored completely, like the number of accredited doctors who accept homeopathy. Creationism does not inform any scholarship, and does not remotely mesh with other scholarly findings — instead, almost every single other academic field must be squished and stretched beyond the breaking point in order for YEC to work. In addition, no correct specific predictions have been made from a creationist model, unlike with actual cosmology, physics, geology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, and history (or as creationists prefer to collectively label them, "evolutionism"). So I'm going to stick with this distinction.

No, creationists are not "dumb", they are just as intelligent as everyone else. Which makes me sad.

View Post


****Mod hat on****

It seems to me that you are not here to debate, but you are here make snide remarks. So you are now banned. We don't have time for time wasters.

****Mod hat off****

#30 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New mexico

Posted 25 September 2010 - 07:41 PM

So it does not matter that all matter was spread across the universe 13-15 billion years ago. Only that the dating markers are there after matter becomes solid. Still a flaw.

Example: The earth is really 13-15 billion years old because it matter came from the big bang, right? But since that is not factored in, the earth is only 4.6 billion because that's when it cooled down enough to leave dating markers.

So which is correct?

1) The matter is as old as the universe because it came from how the universe was created?
2) The matter can only be as old as it's age dating markers regardless of where it came from, or how old it's origins are?

View Post


1. is correct if your referring strictly to matter in a general sense.

According to the theory all subatomic particles (building blocks of matter) are as old as the universe. So yes, everything that exists has technically been around that long. It has just been moving around and changing according to the laws of chemistry.

We don't know when the supernova that created the material for our Sun and the planets to form exploded. Certainly longer than 4.5 billion years ago. It was at that time that the elements that make up our solar system and indeed ourselves were made. The first few million years of Earth were a molten mess. K40 was more abundant then and since then most of the K40 we had is gone. However, that is not what is important in dating rocks. All that is important is the ratio of K40 to Argon found in them. Of course dating a rock isn't going to give you the exact age of the Earth. It will only tell you how long the rock has been solid. So, if you are dating the Earth as a planet, the best you can do is the oldest rock you have found. Right now that oldest rock is 4.5 billion years old. Doesn't really mean the Earth is that old only that the rock is that old and the Earth by proxy must be at least that old.

#31 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 September 2010 - 01:45 PM

Catterling,

I'm still waiting for you to show me the "original authors dates" on the writings.  I take it that since you didn't answer my question that you can't show me anything but modern assumed dates.

View Post


You do realize that any date written on a document that old would appear to be pure gibberish to you right?? Nobody living back then would have any idea what year they were in relative to where we are now.

#32 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 01 October 2010 - 10:47 AM

So you are just backing up one of our YEC arguments. Written history only began around 4,000 years ago. Evolutionists however believe man (in whatever form) have been on the Earth for millions. So why the huge gap? Why did it take man millions of years, and then one day suddenly he just began to documentate his history? It's not logical, this is just one of many flaws in the evolution model of man's origins.


One of the things about living in a completely modern and integrated society is that it's so easy to take for granted how easy it is to document things. If you want to write your history down and have a computer you simply start typing it all in and print it out or blog it. If not a computer then you use a typewriter. Without those you just go to the store, buy some paper, pens or pencils and start writing. What do you do though when you don't have those things? What do you do when you don't have a language?

It's easy to work with language now because since you were born (and prior); you have been immersed in the English language (or insert your language here). Even the simplest concept of naming things and placing words with names (nouns) would be unknown. You couldn't even describe things with a sentence. Like trying to explain to someone what is a bird. You could say "It's the thing that flies around and has feathers", but what would you do back then? Play charades maybe? Even then without a language two people could still be stuck flapping and waving their hands with no actual results.

Back to what do you write on and what do you write with? Needless to say pens and pencils are out. So maybe you pick up a stick or a piece of charcoal (assuming you can find one), what do you write on? One of the miracles of our time is Google. I could ask you how is paper made and you could type it in and presto you know how to make paper. Back prior to the internet that would have required either consulting a book on how to make paper, a trip to the library or asking an expert. Not that you could actually do it but at least you would know how. What do you do though when you don't even know paper (or parchment or papyrus or what have you) exists? Much less how do you make it without even Bronze Age equipment to work with? So what do you write on that has any lasting properties? Can't write on the ground or carve into the trees and expect it to last. Animal hides (that you weren't being used for clothing or shelter) decay and rot away after a certain amount of time unless preserved correctly. You can write on the insides of caves (cave drawings) perhaps, but where else? Chiseling in stone doesn't really become practical until you have a material that is able to do so accurately. Which wouldn’t happen until possibly the copper age at best? More importantly though what do you write about?

You can write about what you see like the animals or hunting for them (cave drawings again). This is really just art though. Yet you still can't really write about any events if you don't have a language to use. But let's assume you do have a language, what would you first write about? Well at first lots of hunting, gathering, dying, and mating. Which brings up another problem, who will be doing the documentation? In a society where there is an adequate supply of food, spare time and lack of stress, thoughts of documentation start to become a reality. When you don't know where your next meal is going to come from (will it be a mammoth or those berries we happen to scrounge up?) or if you will even be alive the next day (will a pack of lions eat half my tribe today) the thought of documenting your life is rather low on the list of priorities.

In other words, written history really isn't possible until you have a society built up to support those things mentioned above. You need language, materials and agriculture (which is another story into itself) to maintain a stable society before documentation surrounding it really starts to happen. Not to mention the issue of keeping accurate time (as mentioned before). It is very easy to take time keeping for granted when it is as easy as it is to measure today. How do you tell when one year is over and another starts? You could try by the seasons but those can fluctuate so rapidly it's not always possible to tell one year from the next. Not to mention how do you even record this?

Before the concept of numbering was invented how did you record time? Yes there are ingenious ways to mark time that were created by various cultures, but again they run into that barrier. How do you record it and what do you record it on? Essentially you are reduced to using tick marks of a sort but you still wouldn't know when they started or what they even mean? Do the tick marks stand for years or seasons? Maybe they stand for full moons? What would happen when the person who wanted to keep time died and no one else wanted to continue doing it (or there was no one left to do it)?

Early hominids evolved millions of years ago, but Homo sapiens has only been around 200,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) and weren't fully developed to modernity till 50,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Homo_sapiens, http://en.wikipedia....oral_modernity). Let's jump back and also consider the invention of agriculture. Look at the timeline of when agriculture began and when written records started and they appear to be pretty closely related. According to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agriculture) the first agriculture began around 7000 BC and written history around 4000 BC (http://en.wikipedia....ecorded_history). Yes there is about a 3000 year gap there, but that's peanuts compared to the whole 200,000 years (or millions as you claim) Homo sapiens have been around. That's about 1.5% of that entire time Homo sapiens have been around.

Looking at this from hindsight, yes it seems illogical that it would take so long to start documenting history. Yet when you put yourself into the shoes of early man it starts to make logical sense.

#33 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 03 October 2010 - 05:21 AM

One of the things about living in a completely modern and integrated society is that it's so easy to take for granted how easy it is to document things.  If you want to write your history down and have a computer you simply start typing it all in and print it out or blog it.  If not a computer then you use a typewriter.  Without those you just go to the store, buy some paper, pens or pencils and start writing.  What do you do though when you don't have those things?  What do you do when you don't have a language?


You are starting at the evolutionist assumption that man started with no writing equipment. This is a weak position because it can't be backed up, it rests entirely on the hypothetical ''prehistory'' i.e before man could record his history which evolutionists invented around the late 19th century.

The term 'Prehistoric' as defined by Encyclopedia Americana:

''... employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and tangible record ''

So there is no evidence for 'prehistoric' ages. They are purely hypothetical and can't be proven to have existed.

Back to what do you write on and what do you write with?  Needless to say pens and pencils are out.  So maybe you pick up a stick or a piece of charcoal (assuming you can find one), what do you write on?  One of the miracles of our time is Google.  I could ask you how is paper made and you could type it in and presto you know how to make paper.  Back prior to the internet that would have required either consulting a book on how to make paper, a trip to the library or asking an expert.  Not that you could actually do it but at least you would know how.  What do you do though when you don't even know paper (or parchment or papyrus or what have you) exists?  Much less how do you make it without even Bronze Age equipment to work with?  So what do you write on that has any lasting properties?  Can't write on the ground or carve into the trees and expect it to last. Animal hides (that you weren't being used for clothing or shelter) decay and rot away after a certain amount of time unless preserved correctly.  You can write on the insides of caves (cave drawings) perhaps, but where else?  Chiseling in stone doesn't really become practical until you have a material that is able to do so accurately.  Which wouldn’t happen until possibly the copper age at best?  More importantly though what do you write about?


See what i wrote above. You are just offering more assumptions here.

In other words, written history really isn't possible until you have a society built up to support those things mentioned above.  You need language, materials and agriculture (which is another story into itself) to maintain a stable society before documentation surrounding it really starts to happen.  Not to mention the issue of keeping accurate time (as mentioned before).  It is very easy to take time keeping for granted when it is as easy as it is to measure today.  How do you tell when one year is over and another starts?  You could try by the seasons but those can fluctuate so rapidly it's not always possible to tell one year from the next.  Not to mention how do you even record this?


The theory of evolution rests entirely on hypothetical non-provable ages such as the 'pre-historic' age.

What evidence do you have people existed before recorded history?

Early hominids evolved millions of years ago, but Homo sapiens has only been around 200,000 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae) and weren't fully developed to modernity till 50,000 years ago (http://en.wikipedia....ki/Homo_sapiens, http://en.wikipedia....oral_modernity).  Let's jump back and also consider the invention of agriculture.  Look at the timeline of when agriculture began and when written records started and they appear to be pretty closely related. According to the wiki (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Agriculture) the first agriculture began around 7000 BC and written history around 4000 BC (http://en.wikipedia....ecorded_history).  Yes there is about a 3000 year gap there, but that's peanuts compared to the whole 200,000 years (or millions as you claim) Homo sapiens have been around.  That's about 1.5% of that entire time Homo sapiens have been around.


All these are faith statements, but you are entitled to your faith of course.

#34 Kaliko

Kaliko

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Canada

Posted 04 October 2010 - 06:40 AM

The term 'Prehistoric' as defined by Encyclopedia Americana:

''... employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and tangible record ''

So there is no evidence for 'prehistoric' ages. They are purely hypothetical and can't be proven to have existed.
See what i wrote above. You are just offering more assumptions here.
The theory of evolution rests entirely on hypothetical non-provable ages such as the 'pre-historic' age.

What evidence do you have people existed before recorded history?
All these are faith statements, but you are entitled to your faith of course.

View Post

Well, does this not throw archaeology into a death spiral? Jericho, arguably the oldest continually inhabited city in the world, has existed since pre-history. There may not be a written record, but evidence of buildings that were built before written history is plentiful. If this is something you're interested in, here's a video about known human civilizations from around the same period where writings emerged:

#35 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:34 AM

Well, does this not throw archaeology into a death spiral? Jericho, arguably the oldest continually inhabited city in the world, has existed since pre-history. There may not be a written record, but evidence of buildings that were built before written history is plentiful. If this is something you're interested in, here's a video about known human civilizations from around the same period where writings emerged:

View Post


How are they dating Jericho though? They do it via modern dating methods (which are all flawed).

There is no evidence for anything 'pre-historic'. No one can prove something existed before man was able to document his history (i.e eye witness testimony).

Where you there? :rolleyes: That's one of Ken Ham's favourite saying, but it's spot on. Unless you were there thousands of years ago how do you know something existed?

#36 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:43 AM

You are starting at the evolutionist assumption that man started with no writing equipment. This is a weak position because it can't be backed up, it rests entirely on the hypothetical ''prehistory'' i.e before man could record his history which evolutionists invented around the late 19th century.

The term 'Prehistoric' as defined by Encyclopedia Americana:

''... employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and tangible record ''

So there is no evidence for 'prehistoric' ages. They are purely hypothetical and can't be proven to have existed.
See what i wrote above. You are just offering more assumptions here.
The theory of evolution rests entirely on hypothetical non-provable ages such as the 'pre-historic' age.

What evidence do you have people existed before recorded history?
All these are faith statements, but you are entitled to your faith of course.

View Post


Yet that wasn't my argument. My argument was to show why if Homo Sapiens have been around 200,000 years, why only recently (so to speak) have humans started recording things. To record history (and have it last) you need the proper materials, a functioning language, and the proper environment (mainly one with lots of order and food) to do it in. If you can show me writings that existed well prior to the invention of agriculture then my assumptions would be wrong. Otherwise they are proven correct by the findings of modern anthropology.

Prehistory is anything prior to recorded history (obviously) and yes there is plenty of evidence for "prehistoric" events. If you want to deny it all as false that's your prerogative. It doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there and can be viewed by anyone. Yes you can deny dating methods and what have you all day long. However, do you have any evidence to show that the work of archaeologists is wrong? What you are trying to say is that the work of thousands of men & women on a daily basis is a sham. I refuse to believe that. One or two yes are going to produce a hoax or two and will slander the name of science but not every single one.

For anyone interested, here is a site that explains my point in way I probably never could.
http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm

In your worldview men & women (homo sapiens) were fully formed with a functioning language. In my worldview language wasn't discovered until well after homo sapiens evolved into their current form. Two different yard sticks that are probably never going to match up. You say that all I have are assumptions and I admit that some of what I wrote is based on assumption. Sorry, anthropology isn't really my strong suit. Yet do you have any sort of evidence or logic showing those assumptions are false? It's one thing to just make a claim and it's another to back them up. In fact, if you can prove me wrong logically show me how. All you have so far is a cherry picked definition, your claim that there is no prehistorical evidence and that my assumptions are wrong. There is no substance here at all. How about the following for starters:

1. Show me that you can record history without a language - logically or with evidence, cave drawings are a start but aren't really historical so to speak
2. Show me some durable materials early man could have practically used to record information - evidence only
3. Show why that the invention of an alphabet (and written history) is not related to the invention of agriculture and civilization - logically and with evidence

Faith with evidence really isn't faith anymore is it? It doesn't matter if you believe the evidence (I do) or not. The fact still remains that I have evidence. The same as if you told me you had evidence of your god. I could deny it all day long but you still have what believe to be evidence. In fact if you had evidence to the contrary to what I have said (showing written history was available back to 200kya) it would require faith on my part to believe the opposite was true. Now do you have evidence for your belief or evidence against my assumptions? If you have faith in yours despite my evidence against it, I can fully understand. Yet do you have evidence against what I have said above?

#37 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:17 PM

If you can show me writings that existed well prior to the invention of agriculture then my assumptions would be wrong.  Otherwise they are proven correct by the findings of modern anthropology.


Where is your evidence agriculture existed before writing? You are again starting at another assumption here.

Prehistory is anything prior to recorded history (obviously) and yes there is plenty of evidence for "prehistoric" events.


What evidence?

If you want to deny it all as false that's your prerogative.  It doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there and can be viewed by anyone.  Yes you can deny dating methods and what have you all day long.


You have yet to list any evidence for your claims.

However, do you have any evidence to show that the work of archaeologists is wrong?  What you are trying to say is that the work of thousands of men & women on a daily basis is a sham.


No, archeology is trustworthy. Creationists just disagree with the dating methods of the artefacts unearthed, not the findings themselves. Why? Because all modern dating methods start at assumptions - and assumptions are not fact.

Archeology has actually verified most of the events described in the Bible.

For anyone interested, here is a site that explains my point in way I probably never could.
http://www.historian.net/hxwrite.htm


And that link starts with dates it can't back up. The 9k figure for example (falls outside of recorded history).

In your worldview men & women (homo sapiens) were fully formed with a functioning language.  In my worldview language wasn't discovered until well after homo sapiens evolved into their current form.  Two different yard sticks that are probably never going to match up.  You say that all I have are assumptions and I admit that some of what I wrote is based on assumption.  Sorry, anthropology isn't really my strong suit.  Yet do you have any sort of evidence or logic showing those assumptions are false?

It's one thing to just make a claim and it's another to back them up.  In fact, if you can prove me wrong logically show me how.  All you have so far is a cherry picked definition, your claim that there is no prehistorical evidence and that my assumptions are wrong.  There is no substance here at all.  How about the following for starters:

1.  Show me that you can record history without a language - logically or with evidence, cave drawings are a start but aren't really historical so to speak
2.  Show me some durable materials early man could have practically used to record information - evidence only
3.  Show why that the invention of an alphabet (and written history) is not related to the invention of agriculture and civilization - logically and with evidence

Faith with evidence really isn't faith anymore is it?  It doesn't matter if you believe the evidence (I do) or not.  The fact still remains that I have evidence.  The same as if you told me you had evidence of your god.  I could deny it all day long but you still have what believe to be evidence.  In fact if you had evidence to the contrary to what I have said (showing written history was available back to 200kya) it would require faith on my part to believe the opposite was true.  Now do you have evidence for your belief or evidence against my assumptions? If you have faith in yours despite my evidence against it, I can fully understand.  Yet do you have evidence against what I have said above?


Interesting, you provided no evidence yourself for your own faith/assumptions and now ask for mine. Nothing in this thread you have claimed you have backed up, and i think continuing will just be a waste of time.

#38 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 04 October 2010 - 01:09 PM

Uh Cassiterides you kind of missed a rather critical part of menes777's post, the little-

"1. Show me that you can record history without a language - logically or with evidence, cave drawings are a start but aren't really historical so to speak
2. Show me some durable materials early man could have practically used to record information - evidence only
3. Show why that the invention of an alphabet (and written history) is not related to the invention of agriculture and civilization - logically and with evidence"

-thing. They are valid points, if requiring a bit of logical conjecture. Oh, also there was the little closing paragraph that had a few pertinent questions:

"Now do you have evidence for your belief or evidence against my assumptions? If you have faith in yours despite my evidence against it, I can fully understand. Yet do you have evidence against what I have said above?"

You basically responded that he has no evidence and what evidence he does have is based on assumption. Then you closed with "continuing this thread is a waste of my time." :rolleyes:

#39 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 06 October 2010 - 05:02 AM

Uh Cassiterides you kind of missed a rather critical part of menes777's post, the little-

"1. Show me that you can record history without a language - logically or with evidence, cave drawings are a start but aren't really historical so to speak
2. Show me some durable materials early man could have practically used to record information - evidence only
3. Show why that the invention of an alphabet (and written history) is not related to the invention of agriculture and civilization - logically and with evidence"

-thing.  They are valid points, if requiring a bit of logical conjecture.  Oh, also there was the little closing paragraph that had a few pertinent questions:

"Now do you have evidence for your belief or evidence against my assumptions? If you have faith in yours despite my evidence against it, I can fully understand. Yet do you have evidence against what I have said above?"

  You basically responded that he has no evidence and what evidence he does have is based on assumption.  Then you closed with "continuing this thread is a waste of my time." :rolleyes:

View Post


Menes777 has not backed up one of his claims yet. All he's offered in this thread is his faith statements and assumptions.

If he backs up his beliefs with science/histortical facts etc i would respond, but since he hasn't then there's no need for me to adress his questions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users