Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_LittleNipper]

How do you know that they aren't? "Unfortunitly", you'll never find out if you just read Ken Hovind's pseudoscientific biblebabble. People are doing research all over this planet, but the question of Noah's Ark is not as important as about 99,999,999,999,999 other things they could be working on. It's a myth, Nipper. It didn't happen. It's a story to teach a moral. Do you think that foxes and crows actually talked to each other, or did people like Aesop just use them as characters in stories? Good grief.

He has a serious flaw in understanding how anxious grad students are to establish themselves by advancing their field and how difficult it is to come up with a Masters or PhD thesis that is original or ground breaking. Can you imagine the reputation a young archeologist would immediately establish if they could show proof of the Exodus or if they actually found remains of Noah Ark? How many religious universities are there out there that would like to be on the forefront of such discoveries? Some, like BYU, are smart enough to know that such investigations inevitably lead to loss of faith when the student proves to himself that his faith was based on events that never happened or happened differently from the narrative on which their faith is based.

The safety net of wanting to categorize all scientists as not investigating all possibilities is much easier to hold on to than finding out there are actually people out there doing exactly what he wants. The problems must be since they are not getting the results he wants they must be secular scientist, because obviously true believers would get different results. The more we excavate the middle east, the more we know that events in the Bible, especially events from the Pentateuch, simply are made up.

Just like Frank, Nippers disagrees with science only where it challenges his religious views. It ought to tell him something, but it won't.

Correction, I disagree with interpretations of data that disagree with the Bible. There is more proof of the Bible today then at anytime in history. We can start with the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls for starters.

[_Fence Sitter]

Correction, I disagree with interpretations of data that disagree with the Bible. There is more proof of the Bible today then at anytime in history. We can start with the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls for starters.

You're not correcting me, you are agreeing with me, you just don't know it.

[_spotlight]

Correction, I disagree with interpretations of data that disagree with the Bible. There is more proof of the Bible today then at anytime in history. We can start with the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls for starters.

I don't know why I keep giving believers the benefit of the doubt. Every time I do I discover they have it just backwards, yet again.

Over the years, news items have circulated about how “hints” and “insights” contained in the original texts among the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a “divine revelation” appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.

Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”) date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a “historical” Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.

What this rumination all means, of course, is that Christianity is, as I contend in my books, largely unoriginal, representing not fresh and new “divine revelation” but, again, the amalgamation of not only the ideas of the Zadokite authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls but also influences from the Essenes, Jews, Samaritans and many others.

It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would blanche upon the discovery of these scrolls, as it could be – and has been – argued that these texts erode the very foundation of Christianity. It appears that this news, however, when released slowly has little affect on the mind-numbing programming that accompanies Christian faith.
http://freethoughtnation.com/dead-sea-s ... noriginal/

[_spotlight]

Humans throw babies away with the blessing of governments. How is that exactly teaching humanity to be respectful of nature when they can't even respect their own bodies or those of the innocent? All this the Bible clearly reveals throughout its pages.

I guess with the fable of the flood of Noah, the message from god imaginary buddy is do as I say and not as I do?

[_LittleNipper]

Humans throw babies away with the blessing of governments. How is that exactly teaching humanity to be respectful of nature when they can't even respect their own bodies or those of the innocent? All this the Bible clearly reveals throughout its pages.

I guess with the fable of the flood of Noah, the message from god imaginary buddy is do as I say and not as I do?

You simply don't really understand God or nature. If one drinks poison one will die. If one sins it is the very same. The fault lies entirely with the one doing it. Your casting of blame on God shows a lack of mature personal responsibility.

[_LittleNipper]

How do you know that they aren't? "Unfortunitly", you'll never find out if you just read Ken Hovind's pseudoscientific biblebabble. People are doing research all over this planet, but the question of Noah's Ark is not as important as about 99,999,999,999,999 other things they could be working on. It's a myth, Nipper. It didn't happen. It's a story to teach a moral. Do you think that foxes and crows actually talked to each other, or did people like Aesop just use them as characters in stories? Good grief.

He has a serious flaw in understanding how anxious grad students are to establish themselves by advancing their field and how difficult it is to come up with a Masters or PhD thesis that is original or ground breaking. Can you imagine the reputation a young archeologist would immediately establish if they could show proof of the Exodus or if they actually found remains of Noah Ark? How many religious universities are there out there that would like to be on the forefront of such discoveries? Some, like BYU, are smart enough to know that such investigations inevitably lead to loss of faith when the student proves to himself that his faith was based on events that never happened or happened differently from the narrative on which their faith is based.

The safety net of wanting to categorize all scientists as not investigating all possibilities is much easier to hold on to than finding out there are actually people out there doing exactly what he wants. The problems must be since they are not getting the results he wants they must be secular scientist, because obviously true believers would get different results. The more we excavate the middle east, the more we know that events in the Bible, especially events from the Pentateuch, simply are made up.

Just like Frank, Nippers disagrees with science only where it challenges his religious views. It ought to tell him something, but it won't.

Frankly, most all students are seeking to be agreeable with their professors, desire the easy way out of any real work, and are not committed to proving anything. Such is called not making waves and party harty!

[_Maksutov]

He has a serious flaw in understanding how anxious grad students are to establish themselves by advancing their field and how difficult it is to come up with a Masters or PhD thesis that is original or ground breaking. Can you imagine the reputation a young archeologist would immediately establish if they could show proof of the Exodus or if they actually found remains of Noah Ark? How many religious universities are there out there that would like to be on the forefront of such discoveries? Some, like BYU, are smart enough to know that such investigations inevitably lead to loss of faith when the student proves to himself that his faith was based on events that never happened or happened differently from the narrative on which their faith is based.

The safety net of wanting to categorize all scientists as not investigating all possibilities is much easier to hold on to than finding out there are actually people out there doing exactly what he wants. The problems must be since they are not getting the results he wants they must be secular scientist, because obviously true believers would get different results. The more we excavate the middle east, the more we know that events in the Bible, especially events from the Pentateuch, simply are made up.

Just like Frank, Nippers disagrees with science only where it challenges his religious views. It ought to tell him something, but it won't.

Frankly, most all students are seeking to be agreeable with their professors, desire the easy way out of any real work, and are not committed to proving anything. Such is called not making waves and party harty!

That's just the way it is at Patriot Bible "University", Nipper. Too bad you never had the guts or ambition to darken the door of a real school. But that would have required you to open more than one book and your poor brain probably couldn't handle the strain.

So, by all means, tell us all about secular academia and your adventures in it.

[_spotlight]

Humans throw babies away with the blessing of governments. How is that exactly teaching humanity to be respectful of nature when they can't even respect their own bodies or those of the innocent? All this the Bible clearly reveals throughout its pages.

I guess with the fable of the flood of Noah, the message from god imaginary buddy is do as I say and not as I do?

You simply don't really understand God or nature. If one drinks poison one will die. If one sins it is the very same. The fault lies entirely with the one doing it. Your casting of blame on God shows a lack of mature personal responsibility.

So babies sinning and deserving of death. Got it. Of course since god works through others his wonders to perform those who choose to punish babies for their "sins" could do so as the agents of your imagined being.

[_Maksutov]

Humans throw babies away with the blessing of governments. How is that exactly teaching humanity to be respectful of nature when they can't even respect their own bodies or those of the innocent? All this the Bible clearly reveals throughout its pages.

I guess with the fable of the flood of Noah, the message from god imaginary buddy is do as I say and not as I do?

You simply don't really understand God or nature. If one drinks poison one will die. If one sins it is the very same. The fault lies entirely with the one doing it. Your casting of blame on God shows a lack of mature personal responsibility.

So babies sinning and deserving of death. Got it. Of course since god works through others his wonders to perform those who choose to punish babies for their "sins" could do so as the agents of your imagined being.

Hey, it isn't genocide when God (actually, his self-appointed proxies) does it.

I've been told on this very board that the death of virtually all life on the earth in the "flood" was the equivalent of hitting 'reset' on a video game. Aborting the earth is good, aborting a fetus is bad. You have to keep these things in proportion.

[_The CCC]

LittleNipper's God is closer to Doby in the Harry Potter series. It is all pure freaking magic.