Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8124 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2014 6:21 AM
117 online now:
(117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,397 Year: 22,238/28,606 Month: 1,325/1,410 Week: 112/415 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
31Next
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
greentwiga
Member
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 316 of 453 (564473)
06-10-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by ZenMonkey
06-09-2010 3:03 PM


Re: izatso?
They had thousands of years to perfect their reed boat building. We have done it about 10 times with a variety of successes and failures. Some have pointed out that we can't build a reed boat that long. We can't even build a reed boat big enough to hold what their bills of lading said they held. Nor have we shown that we can build one that would last long enough to grow moderate sized barnacles on them, but we have the evidence that the boats stayed in the water long enough to grow them. We haven't even found out how to apply the tar or why, yet the ancients felt it necessary and give the recipe. a version of the recipe was used when Heyerdahl visited, and a simple form of the recipe is in the Bible. What we can't do doesn't prove anything about what they did. Furthermore, if this was a regional flood, mainly in the Sumerian swamps, a huge river raft that did not need to stand up to the rigors of sea travel could have been what was built.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-09-2010 3:03 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 06-10-2010 7:17 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13215
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 317 of 453 (564509)
06-10-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by greentwiga
06-10-2010 5:50 PM


Re: izatso?
greentwiga writes:

Furthermore, if this was a regional flood, mainly in the Sumerian swamps, a huge river raft that did not need to stand up to the rigors of sea travel could have been what was built.

If you're dropping the claim of a multi-deck reed boat loaded with representatives of the entire world's species then the plausibility goes way up. It becomes something that could have happened and is such an innocuous claim that there's little point to debating whether the evidence supports that it actually happened. But you now have a different problem: convincing Biblical literalists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by greentwiga, posted 06-10-2010 5:50 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

    
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 318 of 453 (564813)
06-12-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pandion
08-19-2009 12:34 AM


According to the Scofield reference notes on this subject:

quote:

6:15 The dimensions of the ark are themselves an evidence of the accuracy of the Scriptures. On the basis of a cubit as 18 inches, the ark was 450 ft. long with a beam of 75 ft. and a depth of 45 ft. Similar to the proportions of a modern ocean liner, these dimensions are in marked contrast with descriptions of the ark found in ancient mythology. Compare the cuneiform representation of it as shaped like a six-storied cube of 262 ft. with a mast and pilot on top; or the Greek legend, according to Berosus, that it was 3000 ft. long and 1200 ft. wide.

In looking for the cuneiform mention, I found the Epic of Gilgamesh which states it as 360 cubits long. 360 is the same length as many of the longest wooden boats ever recorded, of which Wikipedia has a detailed list.

At any rate, some points to be made:

A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees.

B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well.

C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : links


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pandion, posted 08-19-2009 12:34 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 06-12-2010 10:45 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 320 by subbie, posted 06-12-2010 11:14 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4711
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 319 of 453 (564818)
06-12-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Jzyehoshua
06-12-2010 9:48 PM


Still don't float
A) The wood. As has already been pointed out, this was built of Gopher Wood, and possibly an ancient and strong wood. If the water canopy theory was correct, it may have affected tree growth. Nevertheless, it's a stretch to suggest this could have affected ship strength to much extent, but could've resulted in bigger or longer trees.

There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter). There is no evidence of some ancient super wood. There is no evidence for a water canopy. These are nothing but "what ifs."

B) The crew. Keep in mind that people beforehand lived hundreds upon hundreds of years. They went through a drastic change after the flood when God stated they would from then on live only 120 years. After the flood, human lives began dramatically declining. It is possible our 'missing links' are merely skeletons of human beings in this period of decline when their bodies were changing to shorter lives. At any rate, they may have been shorter and stouter, better able to singlehandedly man a large ship. Bear in mind also it talked about giants and men of extraordinary valor in those days (Genesis 6:4, 10:9) and the longer lives (and inferrably stronger bodies) may have had something to do with this. There were also likely fewer diseases then as well.

There is no evidence for humans living hundreds and hundreds of years. Our "missing links" (a newspaper term, not a scientific term) are dated millions of years ago. The flood is claimed by biblical scholars to have been about 4,350 years ago. There is no evidence that humans were significantly different in height or strength, for a worldwide average, during historic times than now. Certainly not different enough to back up your claim.

C) The measurements. Keep in mind a cubit is based on forearm length. But as mentioned, human bodies before the flood were different. If shorter and stouter with shorter arms, then cubits would be smaller, and the ark smaller. If bigger and taller, the ark could be bigger than believed. At any rate, it's another factor at play here.

Again, there is no evidence for a global flood during historic times. And humans were much the same average dimensions (worldwide) then as now.

These "what ifs" you are coming up with are not evidence, and they don't negate empirical evidence no matter how much you might want them to. They are simply your way of pretending that the flood occurred as described in the bible when the empirical evidence is clear and overwhelming that it did not. You seem to think that you can negate all scientific evidence by a simple "what if." Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Why don't you follow the empirical evidence and see where that leads?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-12-2010 9:48 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 3:58 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 323 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:11 PM Coyote has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3350
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 320 of 453 (564822)
06-12-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Jzyehoshua
06-12-2010 9:48 PM


...possibly an ancient and strong wood.

If the water canopy theory was correct....

It is possible...

If shorter and stouter...

If bigger and taller...

If all the animals that lived before the flud had wings and could live on air alone, then they wouldn't need an ark at all. Gosh, it's easy to explain anything if you're allowed limitless speculation without the need to produce one iota of evidence.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-12-2010 9:48 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 321 of 453 (564889)
06-13-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Coyote
06-12-2010 10:45 PM


Re: Still don't float
quote:
There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter).

This at least is incorrect. There are numerous ancient flood legends worldwide bearing resemblance to that of the Bible. There are numerous Native American flood legends seen at firstpeople.us which have similarities to the Biblical flood legend:

* Acoma: According to the Acoma Creation of Summer and Winterp myth, "The oldest tradition of the people of Acoma and Laguna indicates that they lived on some island; that their homes were destroyed by tidal waves, earthquakes, and red-hot stones from the sky. They fled and landed on a low, swampy coast. From here they migrated to the Northwest, and wherever they made a long stay they built a 'White City' (Kush-kut-ret)."

* Algonquin: Flood legend describes world flood with raven sent to find soil before sending a muskrat. Earth then repopulated. Their legend, 'The Great Flood', mentions a canoe filled with many animals and birds used to escape a huge flood sent after the prophet. A beaver sent out for earth was unsuccessful but the muskrat sent next succeeded. A raven was sent to fly over as dry land appeared, and the earth was then repeopled.

* Apache: Apache Creation Legend tells about people surviving a flood in a tree covered with pinion gum and a flood receding in 12 days. It also says the flood changed plains into mountains, hills, valleys, and rivers. Interestingly, says the sky was made during the time of the flood. The Jicarilla Genesis also tells of great storms and waters with people sending out a polecat and raven to find dry land, and of many dead creatures lying about afterward.

* Blackfoot: The Making of the Earth legend tells of a flood with 'old man' sitting on the highest mountain sending an otter, beaver, muskrat, and then duck to bring back earth.

Similar stories to those in Genesis also exist about how the earth was created (see Abenaki Creation Story & The Importance of Dreaming, Achomawi Creation Myth, Apache Creation Legend, the Jicarilla Genesis, Blackfoot Creation Story).

As seen from the search results, there are more than 50 results for flood on the site. I only looked at the A-B ones, and not thoroughly either.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 06-12-2010 10:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Theodoric, posted 06-13-2010 4:02 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 324 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2010 4:30 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 343 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2010 5:30 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4530
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 322 of 453 (564890)
06-13-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 3:58 PM


Hmmmm
This at least is incorrect. There are numerous ancient flood legends worldwide bearing resemblance to that of the Bible. There are numerous Native American flood legends seen at firstpeople.us which have similarities either to the flood:

So legends constitute evidence?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 3:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 323 of 453 (564892)
06-13-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Coyote
06-12-2010 10:45 PM


Re: Still don't float
quote:
There is no evidence of a global flood in historic times (or ever for that matter).

This statement is also at odds with current scientific discoveries (the following largely repeated from my posts on this topic):

A) The world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by an underwater volcanic eruption near China. This is interesting since in Genesis it talks about 'the fountains of the deep breaking up' which to me has always been suggestive of underwater volcanic activity. Such a flood has always seemed to me a plausible possibility for the breaking up of Pangaea, and it's a shame scientists have refused to consider that or even mention its possibility.
Sources: New York Times, Bloomberg.com, ScienceDaily, National Geographic

B) The inner earth may hold more water than the seas.
Source: National Geographic

C) Huge ocean discovered inside the earth recently.
Source: LiveScience, PhysOrg

D) It is recognized from the 'Permian Triassic Extinction Event' that a large extinction did in fact wipe out much of the earth's life by at least 70-95%. The debate is not on whether it happened, but when it happened.

Additionally, there is the mere act of fossilization, which requires covering something so fast bacteria can't destroy it. Sinking down gradually into swamps doesn't allow for this. And how do you fossilize footprints if not covering them rapidly from above? Josh McDowell in his book 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' addressed these points as well as others, including the mixing of fossil deposits worldwide from different strata (one example given is a quote by Wilfred Francis about the Amber beds of East Prussia, "Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America...").

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 06-12-2010 10:45 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2010 4:41 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2010 8:33 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4711
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 324 of 453 (564896)
06-13-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 3:58 PM


Re: Still don't float
The fact that you can cite myths concerning floods is the weakest evidence imaginable.

Contrast that with, for example, archaeological evidence (just one of many different lines of evidence).

Archaeological evidence shows no global flood about 4,350 years ago. I have personally tested over 100 sites containing deposits spanning that time period, and there was no evidence of a flood (massive erosion or deposition).

Rather, there was continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, and deposition. These results are found by archaeologists all over the world.

How can you even try to contrast that kind of evidence against non-specific myths?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 3:58 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4711
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 325 of 453 (564899)
06-13-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:11 PM


Re: Still don't float
None of this is meaningful evidence.

A) Pangaea is placed about 250 million years ago. Noah's flood is about 4,350 years ago according to biblical scholars. Doesn't this several hundred million year gap bother you at all?

B) So?

C) So?

D) Again you are citing something from 250 million years ago to explain a mythical event that supposedly took place 4,350 years ago.

And fossils have nothing to do with this at all. At 4,350 years ago you are dealing with soils and bones, not rocks and fossils.

Can't you come up with something that consistently agrees with scientific evidence? You are pulling bits and pieces from the scientific literature (more likely from creationist websites) that you think support your point, but you make no effort to have those bits and pieces form a cohesive whole.

One can only conclude that you don't have any significant scientific evidence that supports your claims.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:11 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 5:05 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 326 of 453 (564900)
06-13-2010 4:43 PM


Quotes From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
Here are some quotes from Josh McDowell and Don Stewart about the flood as seen in 'Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity' (1981):

quote:
The process of fossilization is itself an evidence of abnormal deposition. Today, when an animal dies, whether on land or sea, the body immediately begins to rot. Then scavengers, such as vultures, usually eat the carcass. These two agencies, bacteria and scavengers, are very efficient at recycling the material contained in the body. The bones of the animal will dissolve in the sea or be weathered away on land, so not even the bones are sure to be preserved. Thus, there are two agencies which tend to prevent the fossilization of any animal - biological scavengers and weather.

The only manner in which a carcass can be preserved is to remove it from these two agencies. This means that for an animal to be preserved, it must be buried deep enough so scavengers can't get to it and deep enough so oxygen, which bacteria need, is excluded. This implies, however, that the animal must be buried shortly after its death or there will be nothing left to preserve. As Beerbower states,
"In general, the more rapidly an organism is buried and the tighter the seal of its sedimentary tomb, the better the chance of preservation."

...

J.B. Birdsell estimates that during the last geologic epoch (the Pleistocene), the average rate of deposition was only .024 inches per year. If depositional rates like this had prevailed through geologic history, and Birdsell contends that they did, then how can there be any fossils at all? As we saw earlier, to preserve an organism, one must bury it deeply - .024 inches cannot be classified as deep.

Thus it can be seen that the mere presence of a fossil indicates deposition of sediments had to have been thousands of times faster than the normal estimated rates of deposition in order for a fossil to be preserved. If you wished to cover a dead fish with two and one-half inches of sediment, hoping that would be enough to preserve him, you would need a 100-year supply of sediment. And it is uncertain whether two and one-half inches would be deep enough since worms can easily reach that depth and bring the bacteria and oxygen which causes decay. When you look at the major fossil deposits in the world, it becomes obvious that tremendous quantities of sediment were required to preserve them.

"Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated that there are eight hundred million skeletons of Vertebrate animals in the Karroo formation."

Try to preserve that number of dead animals with only .024 inches of sediment and you will utterly fail. Yet that is the average one-year depositional rate.

Other places with fossils -- Like the Karroo formation -- are easily found. The Monterrey shale contains more than a billion fossil fish over 4 square miles. The Mission Canyon formation of the northwestern states and the Williston Basin are estimated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. A crinoid is a deep sea creature. Clark and Stearn conclude,

"How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."

With these and other examples, is it really reasonable to believe slow deposition preserved these fossils? How much more reasonable to assume they were deposited rapidly in a worldwide flood such as described by the Bible.

Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity". "Is fossilization evidence of a catastrophe?", Section 3, pp 196-197.


Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed code


Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2010 4:48 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 328 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-13-2010 5:00 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4711
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 327 of 453 (564902)
06-13-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Quotes From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
You have not addressed my point in a previous post that fossils have nothing to do with the supposed global flood 4,350 years ago.

At that time period we are dealing with soils, not geological formations. And we are dealing with bones, not fossils.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:43 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 946 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 328 of 453 (564904)
06-13-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Jzyehoshua
06-13-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Quotes From Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
That fossilization is rare doesn't mean that it's impossible. Besides, as Coyote rightly points out, fossils have nothing to do with the Flood legend anyway. In fact, how can there be fossils at all, if the Earth is only 6000 years old? When last I checked, it takes at least 10,000 years or so for a fossil to form.

Regardless, the topic of this thread is the total lack of sea-worthiness of the Ark as described in the Bible. Other aspects of the Ark story that involve their own glaring impossibilities belong on different threads.

And will you please learn something instead of doing cut-n-pastes from creationist websites?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-13-2010 4:43 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 329 of 453 (564905)
06-13-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Coyote
06-13-2010 4:41 PM


Re: Still don't float
A) Ironically, that 250 million year estimate is based upon the concept of Uniformitarianism developed by Lyell. If not for this belief that slow changes in plate tectonics, deposition, and evolution caused everything, scientists would've believed instead in mass catastrophes changing things instead. As noted by Berkeley.edu,

quote:

"Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.

Gradual change
For inspiration, Lyell turned to the fifty-year-old ideas of a Scottish farmer named James Hutton. In the 1790s, Hutton had argued that the Earth was transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which we can see around us today. Rain erodes mountains, while molten rock pushes up to create new ones. The eroded sediments form into layers of rock, which can later be lifted above sea level, tilted by the force of the uprising rock, and eroded away again. These changes are tiny, but with enough time they could produce vast changes. Hutton therefore argued that the Earth was vastly old a sort of perpetual-motion machine passing through regular cycles of destruction and rebuilding that made the planet suitable for mankind.

...

Uniform Processes of Change
Lyell's version of geology came to be known as uniformitarianism, because of his fierce insistence that the processes that alter the Earth are uniform through time. Like Hutton, Lyell viewed the history of Earth as being vast and directionless. And the history of life was no different.

Yet geologists today also know that some of the factors that changed the Earth in the past cannot be seen at work today. For example, the early Earth was pummeled by gigantic hunks of solar debris, some as big as Mars. For the first one or two billion years of Earth's history, plate tectonics didn't even exist as we know it today.

Lyell had an equally profound effect on our understanding of life's history. He influenced Darwin so deeply that Darwin envisioned evolution as a sort of biological uniformitarianism. Evolution took place from one generation to the next before our very eyes, he argued, but it worked too slowly for us to perceive.


As seen there, it was Lyell's concept that influenced Darwin's beliefs on evolution. Furthermore, Lyell originally abandoned the concept of catastrophism because he didn't want it linked to Noah's flood. Yet now, scientists recognize that huge catastrophes did indeed play the role Lyell once argued occurred solely because of uniformitarianism.

At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.

We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.

What happens when they are proven wrong? Oh just tack on a few million or billion more years - or subtract, whatever needs to be done. So obviously, the dating methodologies aren't working or so set in stone as evolutionists would have us believe, or this would not occur.

Some examples:

-Scientists question footprints in Mexican volcanic ash being 40,000 years old since it contradicts idea of when humans crossed Bering
Strait 11,000 years ago. Upon further dating, another team decides it is 1.3 million years old. Slight discrepancy in dates.
Source: LiveScience

-Discovery of octopus fossils pushes back belief on origins tens of millions of years.
Source: LiveScience

-New discovery of amazingly complex early fossils push back earliest complex animals 40 million years.
Source: WiredScience

Naturally, it doesn't fill one with confidence when new discoveries result in these supposedly reliable dating theories being amended by "oh, let's tack on another few million years or so".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2010 4:41 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 145
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 330 of 453 (564910)
06-13-2010 5:11 PM


They just fit the evidence to whatever works for their evolutionary theory worldviews, the exact same way they complain Creationists are doing. 40,000 years would not work for evolutionary theory, so it takes another team to get the result they want. Early life was too complex, so we need to take on another 40 million years to its start time.
    
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014