Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This statement in the above referenced article is particularly relevant:
"A second reason why these ages are so widely accepted is that for scientific results to be published in research journals, they must be critically reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same research area. This process is called peer review and is employed in nearly all research journals in the physical and biological sciences and in the humanities and social sciences. Often the reviewers are competitors of the author and thus are especially keen to find flaws in the proposed publications. As a consequence of such review, nearly every paper must be revised and improved before it is published, and some papers are rejected because the review exposes flaws in the measurements or in their analysis and interpretation."
This is why YECs can not get anything published in reputable scientific journals indicating that the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, and that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.
"A second reason why these ages are so widely accepted is that for scientific results to be published in research journals, they must be critically reviewed by other scientists who are experts in the same research area. This process is called peer review and is employed in nearly all research journals in the physical and biological sciences and in the humanities and social sciences. Often the reviewers are competitors of the author and thus are especially keen to find flaws in the proposed publications. As a consequence of such review, nearly every paper must be revised and improved before it is published, and some papers are rejected because the review exposes flaws in the measurements or in their analysis and interpretation."
This is why YECs can not get anything published in reputable scientific journals indicating that the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, and that there was a global flood 4,000 to 5,000 years ago.
T
Yes JackH but one can not rule out 'bias'.
Here's another one,
There are two types of carbon 14 dating technologies. The original oldest one is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. The newer method of "Accelerator Mass spectrometer" ( AMS technology) requires smaller sample sizes and is more accurate.The earlier process is more prone to possibility of errors in each of the many phases. The latest technology (AMS) involves actually counting the carbon 14 atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them. This newer method uses a much smaller sample size and can provide dates going back to maybe 100,000 at best. Generally dates older than 70,000 are considered tentative ages.
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old.
Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made.
In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems.
If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones.
If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14.
Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem.
[emphasis added]
CARBON DATING OF FOSSILS
Here's another one,
There are two types of carbon 14 dating technologies. The original oldest one is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. The newer method of "Accelerator Mass spectrometer" ( AMS technology) requires smaller sample sizes and is more accurate.The earlier process is more prone to possibility of errors in each of the many phases. The latest technology (AMS) involves actually counting the carbon 14 atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them. This newer method uses a much smaller sample size and can provide dates going back to maybe 100,000 at best. Generally dates older than 70,000 are considered tentative ages.
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old.
Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made.
In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems.
If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones.
If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14.
Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem.
[emphasis added]
CARBON DATING OF FOSSILS
Really?
How so?
That sounds like a KJV Onlyist statement.
Are you a KJV Onlyist?
If not, what English translation do you rely on?
I assume you rely on an English translation, unless you are fluent in Greek like Mitspa says he is. He also said he is well aware of the manuscript evidence so I wonder what he thinks about your statement.
Mitspa, what say you about this "Everyone who knows anything about the LXX knows it is unreliable" statement?
How so?
That sounds like a KJV Onlyist statement.
Are you a KJV Onlyist?
If not, what English translation do you rely on?
I assume you rely on an English translation, unless you are fluent in Greek like Mitspa says he is. He also said he is well aware of the manuscript evidence so I wonder what he thinks about your statement.
Mitspa, what say you about this "Everyone who knows anything about the LXX knows it is unreliable" statement?
I didn't say it was credible i showed that anyone can report anything they want to, the truth of the matter is down to the individual to determine. Here's a question, we know as human beings that complex structures made by man use intelligent purposeful design principles, but how does Evolution explain purposeful design found in the natural world (like complex structures) if Evolution is based upon blind unguided random chance processes?, why do scientists copy nature and what exactly are they copying?, how does one explain our known universe coming into existence from Evolution's random chance natural processes?.
You don't have to answer any of those questions if you don't want to, i'm just pointing out the same old pointless debates that have gone on for what seams like forever, lol.
The Christ Jesus (Son of God) did not command his followers to get into endless debates over the age of the universe, nor how old fossils are. The Holy Bible is a vindication of the Supreme Authority of The Almighty Creator God. Also, the Bible is a message of love and peace for everyone but also a warning that God will act on His word and He will execute His judgement in His time on this system of things in this world. God wants all men to be saved and follow His beneficial commands but as we read in the Bible-God is diligent and very patient with all of us we also can take note of the destruction of those that oppose His authority and refuse to change their depraved ways.
Take care JackH, have a nice day but i think this debate has reached its end for me.
You don't have to answer any of those questions if you don't want to, i'm just pointing out the same old pointless debates that have gone on for what seams like forever, lol.
The Christ Jesus (Son of God) did not command his followers to get into endless debates over the age of the universe, nor how old fossils are. The Holy Bible is a vindication of the Supreme Authority of The Almighty Creator God. Also, the Bible is a message of love and peace for everyone but also a warning that God will act on His word and He will execute His judgement in His time on this system of things in this world. God wants all men to be saved and follow His beneficial commands but as we read in the Bible-God is diligent and very patient with all of us we also can take note of the destruction of those that oppose His authority and refuse to change their depraved ways.
Take care JackH, have a nice day but i think this debate has reached its end for me.
M
LOL....I think some may think that because they don't really understand that the issues that some have are really just small matters when one understands the powerful way this Greek record of the Old Testament bears witness and agreement to the Hebrew-Aramaic text...and many don't understand that some copies, such a the Vatican copy, has some errors. But other copies are excellent sources of understand the intention of Gods Word.
LOL you couldn't be more wrong. I am a scholar who knows the nature of the LXX, some of which is close to the Hebrew and some of which has unfortunate additions which are not in any known Hebrew text
I also read Greek and Hebrew.
I prefer to rely on the Greek and Hebrew text, but when citing an English text tend to use an updated ASV as one of the most verbally accurate translations.
We must not think of the LXX as a straightforward translation of the Hebrew text. The LXX was translated a number of times over a long period, and included within it chunks of text not known in a Hebrew text. . Thus some translations are more reliable than others. The Apostles used them with discernment.
Whatever anyone thinks it is only reliable in places and in certain books. It is a massive subject in itself. But it is only a secondary authority, and we know its numerics are unreliable. The primary authority is the Hebrew text.
I also read Greek and Hebrew.
I prefer to rely on the Greek and Hebrew text, but when citing an English text tend to use an updated ASV as one of the most verbally accurate translations.
We must not think of the LXX as a straightforward translation of the Hebrew text. The LXX was translated a number of times over a long period, and included within it chunks of text not known in a Hebrew text. . Thus some translations are more reliable than others. The Apostles used them with discernment.
Whatever anyone thinks it is only reliable in places and in certain books. It is a massive subject in itself. But it is only a secondary authority, and we know its numerics are unreliable. The primary authority is the Hebrew text.
If it was just local I have a few verses that don’t make sense to me.
Gen 6-17 17"Behold,I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all fleshin which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
This sounds like EVERYTHING on earth with the breath of life was going to die.
Then, Gen 7:4
4"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that Ihave made.
Again I don’t get “local” from this, but I do get that these two can be made to fit the “his whole world” argument. I don’t see how this could be interpreted that way though Gen 7:19-23
19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21Allflesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and everys warming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22ofall that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of thespirit of life, died.
I just do not see how a local flood could cover the mountains, and again to me, it seems clear that EVERY living thing on dry land with the breath of life was killed. Please don’t take this as me trying to be a know-it-all, I am honestly curious how you get a local flood out of this. Thanks in advance for your view (if you decide to share it of course, and even if not thanks anyway).
Also we don't have to continue it here either, you could message me if you wanted to, thank again.
Gen 6-17 17"Behold,I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all fleshin which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
This sounds like EVERYTHING on earth with the breath of life was going to die.
Then, Gen 7:4
4"For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that Ihave made.
Again I don’t get “local” from this, but I do get that these two can be made to fit the “his whole world” argument. I don’t see how this could be interpreted that way though Gen 7:19-23
19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21Allflesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and everys warming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22ofall that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of thespirit of life, died.
I just do not see how a local flood could cover the mountains, and again to me, it seems clear that EVERY living thing on dry land with the breath of life was killed. Please don’t take this as me trying to be a know-it-all, I am honestly curious how you get a local flood out of this. Thanks in advance for your view (if you decide to share it of course, and even if not thanks anyway).
Also we don't have to continue it here either, you could message me if you wanted to, thank again.
Last edited:
