Jump to content


Photo

Baseless Assumptions In History


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

#1 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 19 September 2010 - 01:29 PM

I am currently researching the Minoans for my classics course i am taking. I just came to realise how much basless assumption modern historical interpretation really rests on. For example, go to the wikipedia page on the Minoans:

http://en.wikipedia....an_civilization

''The Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age civilization that arose on the island of Crete and flourished from approximately the 27th century BC to the 15th century BC. It was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century through the work of the British archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans. Will Durant referred to it as "the first link in the European chain." The early inhabitants of Crete settled as early as 7000 BC, during the Neolithic age. However it was not until 5000 BC that the first signs of advance agriculture appeared, this marks the the beginning of the civilization.''

Now note all of the baseless assumptions (and this is pretty much the standard case for all of modern books on the Minoans):

1. We have some baseless dates: '27th century BC'' to the ''15th century BC'', these dates are not discovered from historical documents or records the Minoans left themselves but are pure assumptions modern historians have made at when the Minoans began to construct their civilization.

2. Modern dating methods do not back up any of the figures, especially not the the later figures ''5000BC'' and ''7,000BC'', these two dates are two further pure guesses or assumptions.

3. Since modern historians can only guess when the Minoan Civilization began, all they can do is offer spurious, highly contradictory dates based on more pure assumption:

Beginning of Minoans as guessed by different historians:

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

And the list continues to decrease in estimated, guessed dates.

4. The final point is, no historian has a time machine so he/she can not date anything accurate. The only way to date something with accuracy is to use actual contemporary records of eyewitness testimony of the time period.

------

Now apply all the above to the theory of evolution.

It's even worse! We can't even prove the Minoans existed ,5,000 or 4,000 years ago so what chance do evolutionists have of proving the earth is over 4 billion and animals millions? Absolutely zero (unless the evolutionists believe they have a time-machine?)

#2 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:33 PM

It gets better. Read Ruth Beechick's book World History Made Simple. All of our history dates are based off of inaccurate timelines from Egypt, resulting in a "dark age" for surrounding civilizations. The dates don't exist, so the other civilizations have no arcaeological or historical evidence for that time period! They never fixed it because fixing it is just too difficult. :huh: :rolleyes:

#3 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:00 AM

It gets better. Read Ruth Beechick's book World History Made Simple. All of our history dates are based off of inaccurate timelines from Egypt, resulting in a "dark age" for surrounding civilizations. The dates don't exist, so the other civilizations have no arcaeological or historical evidence for that time period! They never fixed it because fixing it is just too difficult.  :huh: :rolleyes:

View Post


Thanks for citing that book. I know the author before, but didn't know they wrote that. I added it to my Amazon-wish list. :)

edit: just saw this ''Favorite YE science author: Michael Oard''

This guy has quite a few books out on the ice age and wooly mammoths, i've seen them on Amazon. Though haven't bought one yet. Are they technical (hard to read)? I prefer history books than science, most science books are really complicated. The only ones i have ever enjoyed are by Henry M Morris i.e The Genesis Flood, Scientific Creationism, Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth etc. Easy reads for the layman, just lists the facts and no assumptions or speculations are offered (unlike in all evolution books).

#4 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 September 2010 - 10:25 AM

Thanks for citing that book. I know the author before, but didn't know they wrote that. I added it to my Amazon-wish list. :rolleyes:

edit: just saw this ''Favorite YE science author: Michael Oard''

This guy has quite a few books out on the ice age and wooly mammoths, i've seen them on Amazon. Though haven't bought one yet. Are they technical (hard to read)? I prefer history books than science, most science books are really complicated. The only ones i have ever enjoyed are by Henry M Morris i.e The Genesis Flood, Scientific Creationism, Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth etc. Easy reads for the layman, just lists the facts and no assumptions or speculations are offered (unlike in all evolution books).

View Post

I own three of his books. They are simpler to read than Henry Morris, IMO. He wrote one for kids, Life in the Great Ice Age, which is scheduled in Heart of Dakota's World History course. That is how I was introduced to his work. I own one about Flood Geography and one about Woolly Mammoths. They explain so much, especially the Woolly Mammoth book. Wow.

#5 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 September 2010 - 04:48 PM

I own three of his books. They are simpler to read than Henry Morris, IMO. He wrote one for kids, Life in the Great Ice Age, which is scheduled in Heart of Dakota's World History course. That is how I was introduced to his work. I own one about Flood Geography and one about Woolly Mammoths. They explain so much, especially the Woolly Mammoth book. Wow.

View Post

I found the books so I could give you titles. Frozen in Time; Woolly Mammoths, The Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to Their Secrets and Flood by Design. Enjoy!

#6 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

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

Posted 21 September 2010 - 02:58 PM

Well I can kind of understand the large-scale guesswork on 'recent' history like that, and animal life is even more difficult (bordering on impossible), but what about carbon-dating for the Earth? I understand your point and I think it is definitely valid, especially with respect to civilizations, and I believe that yes, it is a big grey area, but geology and half-lives and whatnot make a pretty persuasive argument for the general gist of the earth's age... :blink:

#7 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:48 PM

Well I can kind of understand the large-scale guesswork on 'recent' history like that, and animal life is even more difficult (bordering on impossible), but what about carbon-dating for the Earth?  I understand your point and I think it is definitely valid, especially with respect to civilizations, and I believe that yes, it is a big grey area, but geology and half-lives and whatnot make a pretty persuasive argument for the general gist of the earth's age... :blink:

View Post


Carbon dating actually supports the idea that the Egyptian timeline is incorrect (first link)...

creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_70-71.pdf

PEOPLE who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to
give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years … We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods. …
creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf

creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

http://creation.com/...-everyday-terms

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 September 2010 - 05:11 PM

Well I can kind of understand the large-scale guesswork on 'recent' history like that, and animal life is even more difficult (bordering on impossible), but what about carbon-dating for the Earth?  I understand your point and I think it is definitely valid, especially with respect to civilizations, and I believe that yes, it is a big grey area, but geology and half-lives and whatnot make a pretty persuasive argument for the general gist of the earth's age... :blink:

View Post


All the material came from one source in the Big Bang, right? So why does not the same material, from the same source, date the same age?

You see age dating is flawed from the very beginning.

#9 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

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

Posted 21 September 2010 - 05:17 PM

Ok c14's half life is ~5700 years, and it is accurate to 70,000 years (can't predict over 70,000 yrs). So that's not enough to show the earth is its 4.6 billion. But what about radiometric dating? Or isochron dating? The half-lives for other isotopes are much longer, and therefore much more accurate than carbon dating.

http://www.actionbio...ion/benton.html
http://www.talkorigi...g.html#isochron

I think it's funny that your sources are from "creation" websites and mine (very appreciably lowbrow, but then again I put about 30 seconds of research into this) has the word "evolution" in it. :blink: :P
We can both keep fielding resources that are skewed both ways, but it doesn't really get us anywhere... guess it just goes to show nothing is ever black and white. :lol:
There are a lot of sources that say radiometric dating is inaccurate, and a lot that say it is highly accurate.

Oh ikester because the elements themselves have different decay rates and form from different substances at different times. (I would quote but I don't know how ;) ) The best of my understanding, the best we can do is use matter from material that probably formed at the same time (like from a close rock sample or something).

#10 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 21 September 2010 - 05:35 PM

The article that I linked was from the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Archaeology. Is that not a good reference? Did you read it?

Most of the things that I read or site have sources referenced, that is one thing that I insist on in scientific articles. Some of the sources are not creationist materials. The creationists just put them all together nicely for me. :blink:

#11 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 21 September 2010 - 06:29 PM

All the material came from one source in the Big Bang, right? So why does not the same material, from the same source, date the same age?

You see age dating is flawed from the very beginning.

View Post



All material according to the theory in question didn't coalesce and form at the same time. A lot of it was free floating hydrogen before it formed denser atoms and molecules.

edit: spelling of 'coalesce'

#12 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 September 2010 - 11:47 PM

All the material came from one source in the Big Bang, right? So why does not the same material, from the same source, date the same age?

You see age dating is flawed from the very beginning.

View Post



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.

#13 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

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

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:56 AM

What dating methods should creationists use to answer the question, and how do those methods give dates more precise than the old-Earth archaeologists' dates?

#14 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:43 AM

All matter came from the big bang.

View Post


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.

#15 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:55 AM

All the material came from one source in the Big Bang, right? So why does not the same material, from the same source, date the same age?

You see age dating is flawed from the very beginning.

View Post


Because as long as you have an open system radioactive isotopes can move into and out. When the system becomes closed(lava hardening for example) atoms become stuck in place and the clock starts.

#16 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

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

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:11 PM

What dating methods should creationists use to answer the question, and how do those methods give dates more precise than the old-Earth archaeologists' dates?

View Post


I briefly covered this in my first post: 'The only way to date something with accuracy is to use actual contemporary records of eyewitness testimony of the time period.', so for example this would include ancient historians or other ancient sources from chronicles, kings lists etc.

#17 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

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

Posted 24 September 2010 - 05:36 PM

I briefly covered this in my first post: 'The only way to date something with accuracy is to use actual contemporary records of eyewitness testimony of the time period.', so for example this would include ancient historians or other ancient sources from chronicles, kings lists etc.

View Post


But in that first post, you say:

We have some baseless dates: '27th century BC'' to the ''15th century BC'', these dates are not discovered from historical documents or records the Minoans left themselves but are pure assumptions modern historians have made at when the Minoans began to construct their civilization.


If indeed there is nothing by way of written history going back far enough, it seems the creationist approach would have be to either to throw up one's hands…

… or recieve another revelation relevant to the culture in question!

In any case, there exists plenty of written history from cultures all over the world which does consistently go back more than seven thousand yeas. Naturally, the creationist response has been to assert that in every single case, the culture's historians are exaggerating, rather than allow for possible exaggeration or understatement on the part of one particular written source, the Tanakh.

#18 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 September 2010 - 06:25 PM

In any case, there exists plenty of written history from cultures all over the world which does consistently go back more than seven thousand yeas. Naturally, the creationist response has been to assert that in every single case, the culture's historians are exaggerating, rather than allow for possible exaggeration or understatement on the part of one particular written source, the Tanakh.

View Post


It's not the cultures historians, but the modern historians who date that which wasn't dated to begin with.

Please show the Date on the written history as by the original author that dates back 7,000 years or past it.

No, I do not want the modern historians assumption of what the date should be, I want the original authors date.

Can you do that for me? Oh, and by the way... I don't see any Mormons on this forum.

#19 Catterling

Catterling

    Newcomer

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

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:38 PM

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

In any case, there exists plenty of written history from cultures all over the world which does consistently go back more than seven thousand yeas.


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.

Please show the Date on the written history as by the original author that dates back 7,000 years or past it.

No, I do not want the modern historians assumption of what the date should be, I want the original authors date.

View Post


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

about the amount of time that would have elapsed. (They assume, for example, that none of the unknown-age men in Jesus's line of descent lived for half a million years.)

Well, interestingly, that is actually pretty similar to the work of chronologists, whose job involves calculating written accounts based on local calendars, and finding synchronization with other cultures (wars, for example, will be written about by both sides), as well as how those synchronize with astronomical events and other cycles.

From Answers in Genesis, "Egypt or Babel, Which Came First?", by Kurt Wise:

The Bible’s history gives far fewer years before Abraham than the ancient histories of other cultures, such as the king lists of the Sumerians and the Egyptians. However, it seems that priests and writers of these other histories purposely stretched their dates and histories, perhaps to show that their own culture was superior to all others.

Some of the earliest people in each of these king lists were deified as gods, and many were given life spans of thousands and tens of thousands of years.


That sounds like an impressive rebuttal to chronologists. Here's why it isn't.

First of all, Egyptologists aren't dumb enough to assume that a written life span of tens of thousands of years is to be taken at face value. Therefore, the chronologies that historians have developed are not based on any such exaggerations.

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.

Thirdly, this major creationist site itself admits that:

The Bible gives us no more specific information on when Babel occurred—namely, it falls between the Flood and the time of Abraham, probably near the midpoint (around 2200 BC), give or take a century.


"Probably?" That sounds like another

assumption!

Later on that page, Wise writes:

Not only are these secular histories stretched in time, but they do not mention the division of languages. So, although the Bible doesn’t precisely date Babel, no other source does either.


This is the sort of thing that leads one to strongly consider the possibility that there was no such event. The only alternative is a massive conspiracy of silence. One can't even argue this time that the conspiracy arises from the desire of rival nations to disprove the Hebrew scripture, unless one brings time travel into it.

My main point is that it is simply bizarre to pick one particular written history, the Tanakh, and decide that it "trumps" every single other written history on Earth. What is the basis for this? What prior evidence tells us to accept the Bible in full with no equivocations? Even when it seems to be doing exactly what Kurt Wise calls out those Egyptians for doing (exaggerating the ages of long-gone patriarchs)?

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:06 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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users