Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 63248

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.

cats3to2, Y! answers 58 Comments [6/15/2009 12:10:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 51
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
JSS

"I'll go with the eye witness accounts and words of God rather than trust in the guesses of men."

Yes because we all know the bible fell from the sky and was not at all tainted by the thoughts of men.

6/15/2009 12:13:16 PM

Doctor Whom

Which god or gods? If you mean the Jewish or Christian God, which of the two Genesis creation accounts constitutes "the written records"?

6/15/2009 12:13:42 PM

Arts_Myth

And of course, in the many translations that the Bible has gone through over the ages, decisions as to the best word choices relied not a whit on "the guesses of men."

6/15/2009 12:18:47 PM

aaa

My name is God and i say this to you: Stop being a fucking moron.

6/15/2009 12:21:09 PM

breakerslion

"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.

6/15/2009 12:22:10 PM

pfft

http://www.internet-d.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2.jpg

6/15/2009 12:23:35 PM

wackadoodle

you mean written records like the egyptian/indian/chinese ones tht never mention a global flood?

6/15/2009 12:31:01 PM

JohnTheAtheist

Yes, disregard all evidence and reason because it doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions. Good plan, douchebag.

6/15/2009 12:34:45 PM

voivoed

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.

6/15/2009 12:45:49 PM

Mayhem

It seems to me that the only written records, and I use the term loosely, that scientific dating disagrees with, is yours.

6/15/2009 12:55:42 PM

Old Viking

There are no eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible. It's all, like, made up. Know what I mean?

6/15/2009 12:58:49 PM

EvoPagan

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?

6/15/2009 1:02:12 PM

Lucilius

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.

6/15/2009 1:04:14 PM

Wehpudicabok

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>

6/15/2009 1:20:45 PM

tracer

"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.

6/15/2009 1:27:14 PM

Grigadil

Yeah, its funny watching geeks trying to get a date.

"Argon-argon?"

"Pssh. Loser."

6/15/2009 1:27:17 PM

Amanda

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.

6/15/2009 1:42:45 PM



Fundyism in a nutshell.

6/15/2009 1:45:51 PM

Osiris

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.

6/15/2009 2:45:43 PM

Darwin's Lil' Girl

No, it's the Bible that has problems! The Biblical stories contradict the oral traditions of the Native Americans! I'll take oral traditions over written records any day!

6/15/2009 3:11:20 PM

Dio Fa

Even better than written records are audio records!


6/15/2009 3:11:36 PM

Horsefeathers

"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.

6/15/2009 3:12:44 PM

Mudak

All right, so answer me this one question: at first, there was only god. Who observed god doing all of that stuff before anyone was around to document his activities?

6/15/2009 3:26:25 PM

Brain_In_A_Jar

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!

6/15/2009 3:32:54 PM

Ken

So instead of looking for a better method, we should just study the lineages of nine hundred-year-old people?

6/15/2009 4:04:43 PM
1 2 3