Could this be considered a valid challenge to pose to Creationists and other such fools? help me out guys
Offline Creationists and other science haters?
Can you prove, WITHOUT the use of carbon dating or any other scientific method that the texts of the New Testament weren't written in the fifteenth century? when the first published copy of the bible(latin vulgate) 1450-1456 were printed on the Gutenburg press? Can you prove that any of the scrolls and texts and contemporary accounts weren't created in mass at that time? And that modern scholars aren't just lying about the ages of the scrolls? Sure the bible lists historical events but who is to say that the people couldnt write any of that in 1456? if you say Josephus or the council of nicea or any other contemporary source PROVE without carbon dating that they were written anytime before the 1400's. Remember you can't use science in anyway for this challenge. prove that any of these writings weren't produced at the same time with a "Past tense narrative".
Note: you cannot use the bible to prove the bible
Would this be something valid to ask creationists who claim that Carbon dating is flawed ect. I saw this and I was wondering if there are any logical or scientific holes in this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
[MOD EDIT - removed background color on title so it would display]
- Login to post comments
What is the point of refuting creationism on grounds of when the Bible was published! There are so many scientific holes in creationism that you might as well just point them out! What you are doing is analogous to trying to refute Death Star Mechanics & Engineering based on the structural integrity of Darth Vader's plans! Why not just point out how ridiculous the premise is?
Start with these:
Entropy and Life- The Functions of Thermodynamics and their implications for biological systems
Blood Clotting and Evolution- A Critique of one of Behe's Four Arguments of Irreducible Complexity
The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
But I noticed this question earlier today and I was wondering if it is a good counter argument for people who can't remember a ton of scientif fact. Or should I have said...let's forget Creationism all together....For all thoes who say the earth is less than 6000 years old. And try to prove this by using basic anti carbon dating statements...I am tired so I am not making much sense hahaha
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
This is like Last Thursdayism: prove the world was not actually created by your god Last Thursday, with everything in place as to give it the appearance of being X years old. Everyone older than Last Thursday was created of an age, with their memories in place, etc, etc.
I would dearly love to watch the mental contortions that a young Earth creationist would go through to say why the world has to be 6000 years old and not somewhere between 7 and 14 days old.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
Yes this is a clear case of selectively cherry picking only favorable scientific evidence. If one is going to call into question the reliability of carbon dating they must be consistent and throw out all evidence derived from carbon dating, even that evidence which may support some other part of their belief system.
Of course, to question the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques they are going to have to explain away the consilience of many different techniques. There may be ways to question the results of individual techniques but there is no reasonable explanation why various techniques should all coincide as they do if the techniques are innaccurate.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins