Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques. I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men. When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again.
59 comments
"Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques."
Citation needed.
"I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God..."
You mean the alleged eyewitness accounts of Adam and Eve? Written in the past tense and third person? Written by people who were collecting money for telling those stories so why would they lie?
"... rather than trust in the guesses of men."
Empirical data is not a "guess". Margins of error seldom approach 400 Billion years, unlike your story book.
"When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again."
Yes. Something is wrong with your bullshit written "records". What you did wrong was pay them any credence. The only dating system that will ever agree with those "records" is the one you pull out of your ass. That should tell you something about the observations of Bronze Age goatherds eating ergot infested grain. Try again.
I must say I agree... scientists are too nerdy-looking to actually get dates.
They do need to come up with some way to improve their dating techniques so they can go out and actually get good looking girls (or guys). Otherwise the whole scientist-dom might go extinct for lack of procreation. Unless they start cloning themselves of course.
The dating system in the babble worked pretty well, you could just go out and buy someone's daughter, or you could rape a woman so she would be forced to marry you. It boggles the mind people actually dropped it.
It seems to me that the only written records, and I use the term loosely, that scientific dating disagrees with, is yours.
When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again.
How about when you come up with a holy book that doesn't agree with reality that you yourself can observe with no scientific equipment and no need for higher education?
Talk about "gap theory" you've never learned anything about the confused and fragmentary transmission of Biblical manuscripts, have you?
What am I saying. Of course not. If you had, you might not be such a public idiot.
I'll agree that certain scientists (such as myself) have severe problems with dating... but I don't think that's what you mean...
Knowing the correct age of the planet on which you live > having a girlfriend. </tangent>
"When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again." Okay, then, let me write this down:
"Pat Robertson was born in 2002."
There. Now there is a written record (see sentence above) that Pat Robertson is only 7 years old. Therefore, if you come up with a Pat-Robertson-dating-system that doesn't agree with this written record, you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again.
Maybe they should start with flowers, and then try to hold hands the next time. Also, when they kiss, they shouldn't use too much tongue.
Eye-witness acounts are known for being the least reliable forms of evidence. If any other evidence contradicts an eye-witness account then the eye-witness account is wrong. That's how it's done in court and that's how it's done in science.
In conclusion; the Bible is wrong because much more reliable methods contradict it.
"Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques."
Clearly you don't have a fucking clue. All of the dating methods line up just as you'd expect and all of them reconcile with one another, within the bounds of their error margins anyway.
I'm not aware of any dating method that flat out contradicts any of the others. Unless you're trying to carbon date a rock or use dendrochronology to get dates of millions of years I really have no clue what you're talking about.
"I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men."
Fine. I'd like to personally cross-examine this eye witness. Please let me know where I can find him.
"When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again."
Yes, when immutable laws of the universe tell you the Earth is 4.6 billion years old it's best to trust the word of fallible Bronze Age ignoramuses instead.
Makes perfect sense.
Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques.
Not really - dinner and a movie still works, you've just got to make it a sci-fi movie.
EDIT - curses, beaten to the punch again!
When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again.
Yeah, like decide maybe the written records are wrong?
Scientists can't get dates?
Feh.
Although there hasn't been one for over a decade, I give you The Studmuffins of Science Calendar!
The requirements are:
1. You must have a PhD in a scientific field
Who to the what, now? Dating techniques and witness accounts and words of God?
There are no written records from 65 million years ago. Unless you count the fossils as "written in stone"; then there are plenty of them.
The Bible is one shortsighted biased account. There are civilizations older than 6000 years, you know. China and Japan for instance, the people who lived in the Americas before white man came and did his best to erradicated them, same with Australia and New Zeeland. If all their records allign with the Bible and tell of the same kind of flood at the same time, then it will be easier to believe.
What did you say? Your witness accounts are better than theirs? Based on what?
I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men.
Okay, which version of the "word of god"?
Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques.
Really? So you've tested their techniques? Found flaws? Experimented with other techniques and found a better one? Published it for peer review?
No? Well then you really aren't qualified to say science is wrong, are you?
> Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques.
Not at all! A surprisingly big portion of the scientific community is married! Geeks aren't actually that horrible with dating!
...oh, you mean the other kind of dating. Well, there's not many problems with that either.
> When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records,
Now there's a problem right here. If we come up with results that are inconsistent with the previous data, further investigation is clearly needed. Oh, you mean data that doesn't agree with the Bible? Well, in that case, further investigation is clearly needed, most notably into the reasons why the Bible's alleged dates are so horribly inconsistent with the reality.
Then try this.
And this: There are no dates given in your Bible (your time frames are interpretations only,based on a scetchy, uncollaborated geneology) vs the work of thousands of trained proffessionals over decades of comparision and cross-checking of each other work
Hardly guesses
"Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques"
Prof. Stephen Hawking married his nurse (his second marriage too; he had three kids via his first wife), and is known to have posters of Marilyn Monroe. So he certainly has no problems dating, and still has plenty of lead in his pencil.
;D
"Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques."
Richard Dawkins has married twice. First to Maria Dawkins, then to actress (and former "Doctor Who" companion) Lalla Ward.
[/smartarse]
"Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques."
Not really. Prof. Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins are married . [/smartarse]
"I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men."
'Eyewitness accounts' from someone who doesn't exist ? Your argument - and therefore your beliefs as a whole - is invalid.
"When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again"
Until you can come up with evidence in a court case - post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover - in which the only possible way you can persuade the judge to decide in your favour - is to make God appear in the witness stand, then you know you're on a hiding to nothing, and it's time to give up.
Moral: we Atheists have the evidence (PROTIP: Kitzmiller vs. Dover). We win .
Yes, eye-witness accounts (by "men") and recorded by "men" are so much more reliable than data taken by "men"
Why don't you go fuck your self up a tree?
“Clearly the scientists have some huge problems with their dating techniques.”
“I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men.”
"When you come up with a dating system that doesn't agree with written records, then you know you did something wrong and it's time to try again.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
