Age of Earth - Thousands Not Billions

Originally posted by stellspalfie
okaaaay, lets stay on topic...kent hovind, the man in your video link

are you telling me i should trust the words of an unqualified, criminal (serving 10years, with more trials to come) over the words of extremely qualified, non criminal, highly respected scientists?

Mr. Hovind is a highly qualified teacher of science. Often people are put in prison for political or other reasons than being guilty of a crime. Later they are found to be not guilty.

However, the important thing is that many other scientists believe the same thing, but are not good teachers. There is enough information available today to doubt the accuracy of Carbon dating that even evolutionists are scrambling to make excuses. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mr. Hovind is a highly qualified teacher of science. Often people are put in prison for political or other reasons than being guilty of a crime. Later they are found to be not guilty.

However, the important thing is that many other scientists believe the same thing, but are not good teachers. There is enough information available today to doubt the accuracy of Carbon dating that even evolutionists are scrambling to make excuses. 😏

You keep babbling on about how C14 dating (carbon dating) is 'inaccurate'. It has long been known that this particular dating method has certain weaknesses and for this reason 'raw' C14 data is NEVER used as a sole dating method unless no other data is available (which is almost never the case). Fortunately we are able to calibrate C14 data using a number of different tools which I would be happy to explain further, to the point that a reasonably small set of data sources from a site can be used to provide a reasonably reliable date for said site. You should also bear in mind that even calibrated C14 data from longer than 10-15kyBP would be looked on with a certain amount of suspicion under critical review.

This in no way reduces the value of carbon dating as an archaeological tool, and to suggest that 'evolutionists' (again with the evolutionists - who are these people you keep castigating?) are 'scrambling to make excuses' for it is either fatuous or disingenuous. There is absolutely no point in carrying out C14 dating on material which is older than 50 or 60 thousand years. A date will invariably be returned from the experiment, but the source of the radiocarbon being dated CANNOT be relevant to the dated material. Using this method on dinosaur bones is therefore a completely pointless exercise.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You keep babbling on about how C14 dating (carbon dating) is 'inaccurate'. It has long been known that this particular dating method has certain weaknesses and for this reason 'raw' C14 data is NEVER used as a sole dating method unless no other data is available (which is almost never the case). Fortunately we are able to calibrate C14 data using a n ...[text shortened]... ated material. Using this method on dinosaur bones is therefore a completely pointless exercise.

That is why Kent Hovind points out that fossils are dated by the rock layers and the rock layers are dated by the fossils. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is why Kent Hovind points out that fossils are dated by the rock layers and the rock layers are dated by the fossils. 😏

That's an incomplete and highly simplistic view, to the point of being deliberately misleading.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That's an incomplete and highly simplistic view, to the point of being deliberately misleading.

Not really, because that is the way they have done it from the time the geological column was made up and printed in textbooks. Any date that does not agree with the assigned dates for the geological column diagram are usually thrown out.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mr. Hovind is a highly qualified teacher of science. Often people are put in prison for political or other reasons than being guilty of a crime. Later they are found to be not guilty.

However, the important thing is that many other scientists believe the same thing, but are not good teachers. There is enough information available today to doubt the accuracy of Carbon dating that even evolutionists are scrambling to make excuses. 😏

Mr. Hovind is a highly qualified teacher of science.


nope, he has high school level qualifications in science.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]Mr. Hovind is a highly qualified teacher of science.


nope, he has high school level qualifications in science.[/b]

He taught high school science for 15 years, that is more experience than most of your evolutionists I bet.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Not really, because that is the way they have done it from the time the geological column was made up and printed in textbooks. Any date that does not agree with the assigned dates for the geological column diagram are usually thrown out.

That is simply not true. I assume you are referring to index fossils? You should take the time to look into the rigour which goes into assigning these. It's a world away from the rigour which you apply to data that you eagerly accept. A single, verified incidence of an index fossil demonstrably recovered from a primary context contrary to that to which it is taken to indicate would be enough to build a career on.

Really Mr Hinds, you show such a glaring absence of knowledge in this area that I wonder why you persist in arguing. You have obviously never spent any time with experts or even enthusiastic amateurs involved in palaeontology, archaeology or natural sciences, or, to that matter, academics in any field. You casually dismiss the fruits of innumerable careers spent in pursuit of knowledge for little in the way of material reward and following no agenda beyond a sincere curiosity and desire to build upon the edifice of human knowledge. You justify this foolishness by your blanket assertion that all of these hundreds of thousands of people are either 'misled' or intent on furthering some imagined conspiracy to discredit the already entirely discredited, ill-educated crackpots who compile your limited and obviously flawed sources of data. You are clearly not an idiot, as is strongly implied by your mindless adherence to a patently stupid ideology, however your faith in your particular peripheral brand of christianity appears to have rendered you incapable of reasoned discussion.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That is simply not true. I assume you are referring to index fossils? You should take the time to look into the rigour which goes into assigning these. It's a world away from the rigour which you apply to data that you eagerly accept. A single, verified incidence of an index fossil demonstrably recovered from a primary context contrary to that to whi ...[text shortened]... peripheral brand of christianity appears to have rendered you incapable of reasoned discussion.

I understand that there are many well-meaning and hard working people interested in discovering truth in science. The only thing Dr. Hovind and myself are pointing out is that they have been indoctrinated to a false worldview to the point that they cannot interpret the truth from the facts, but are instead believing a lie.

Evolution, a False Religion World View Masqueraded as Science

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand that there are many well-meaning and hard working people interested in discovering truth in science. The only thing Dr. Hovind and myself are pointing out is that they have been indoctrinated to a false worldview to the point that they cannot interpret the truth from the facts, but are instead believing a lie.

Evolution, a False Religion World View Masqueraded as Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gnBxplea4w

In quiet moments, do you ever glimpse the ridiculous nature of your own arguments?

Genuine question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He taught high school science for 15 years, that is more experience than most of your evolutionists I bet.

He taught high school science for 15 years


ha! idiot.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand that there are many well-meaning and hard working people interested in discovering truth in science. The only thing Dr. Hovind and myself are pointing out is that they have been indoctrinated to a false worldview to the point that they cannot interpret the truth from the facts, but are instead believing a lie.

None of us know for sure what happened in the past, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. The weight of evidence in support of a 4+ billion year-old earth compared to that in support of a 6000 year-old earth is overwhelming. After an even reasonably impartial review, only somebody in the grip of severe paranoid delusions could rationally conclude otherwise.

'Dr' Kent Hovind is not qualified to discuss these matters. His doctorate (which has been criticised as being incomplete, of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style) was awarded by Patriot Bible University (well known as a diploma mill) in 'Christian Education'. Even if one were to accept his qualification on face value, this would in no way constitute suitable qualification to allow one to consider his startlingly unorthodox views on an even footing to somebody with a qualification in a relevant field from a reputable university. It is illuminating to note that Mr Hovind has, however, become rather wealthy from peddling his particular brand of ignorance to his doubtless well-meaning if misinformed followers. In your reliance on this gentleman as a scientific source I can, I feel, safely conclude that you are also not qualified to discuss these matters.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
None of us know for sure what happened in the past, we can only weigh the evidence available to us. The weight of evidence in support of a 4+ billion year-old earth compared to that in support of a 6000 year-old earth is overwhelming. After an even reasonably impartial review, only somebody in the grip of severe paranoid delusions could rationally co ...[text shortened]... source I can, I feel, safely conclude that you are also not qualified to discuss these matters.

But we knew all that 4 years ago. You cannot have a real discussion or debate with his style of ideologue, his mind has gone long ago, now he is reduced to relying on the word of such charlatans as the "dr" hovind.

I found this critical assessment of his so-called Phd:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertations

BTW, he was convicted of 58 felonies.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe that could be said of all our understanding. It all depends on our faith to believe God as creator or nothing as the creator or perhaps something called evolution as the creator.

To me it takes less faith to believe an intelligent God is the creator than nothing or something with no intelligence.

Are those our only choices? Must it all be black or white, with not a speck of grey?

Why do you find it impossible to understand a Creator creating the universe using his own natural laws?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is not true. I don't know of any creationists that call Kent Hovind a fraud.

Well if you read the link then you would know a number of Creationists who consider Kent Hovind a fraud. Let me save you the effort:

Criticism from creationists
Hovind has been criticized by other creationists who believe that his arguments are incorrect and undermine their causes. For instance, in 2002 and 2006, Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati wrote that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[65][66]
Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. Answers in Genesis was critical of Hovind[65] after he responded to a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[67][68] In particular, AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[69] as well as "fraudulent claims" from Ron Wyatt,[65] and said Hovind's claims were "self-refuting".[70]
Disagreements over Hovind contributed to AiG splitting into U.S. and Australian chapters in 2005. The Australian branch, renamed Creation Ministries International, maintained content critical of Hovind on their website, while the U.S. branch, led by Ken Ham, removed it.[71]
In September through October 2000, Hugh Ross debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network.[72][73] Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences,[74] and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."[75]

The people on this site who consider you to be fraudulent are also quite numerous. I am sure you know that.