Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 41 of 126 (546297)
02-09-2010 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
02-09-2010 12:05 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Buzsaw writes:
I don't accept that carbon dating and perhaps other dating methodology would work prior to the flood if indeed it happened due to the implied pre-flood earth and atmosphere.
So radiocarbon dating, as well as all other forms of radiometric dating, is unreliable. And it's unreliable because of the incredible, planet-altering effects of a global flood. And this flood must have not only radicaly changed the geography and climate of the entire planet, but must have somehow changed the very nature of matter itself in order to skew things like atomic decay rates so drastically. And it did so in less than a year. And yet somehow this reality-changing event left no discernable traces whatsoever in the physical history of the planet, which instead shows a reliable continuous history, confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, going back for billions of years.
Am I understanding this correctly? This planet - this entire universe, it seems - was changed so radically and completely less than 10,000 years ago that there's absolutely no traces of this change actually happening?
Just wondering.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 12:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 8:11 PM ZenMonkey has replied
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 11:57 PM ZenMonkey has replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 43 of 126 (546305)
02-09-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
02-09-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Coyote writes:
The more you look at the data the more you realize how thoroughly science has disproved the idea of a purported global flood at ca. 4,350 years ago.
Maybe it wasn't 4350 years ago. It could have been 4360 years ago. Or maybe only 4300! Ha! Why haven't any of those atheist evolutionistic archeologists checked that out, huh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 8:11 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 57 of 126 (546600)
02-12-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
02-09-2010 11:57 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Buzsaw writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
Am I understanding this correctly? This planet - this entire universe, it seems - was changed so radically and completely less than 10,000 years ago that there's absolutely no traces of this change actually happening?
According to the Biblical record, it is not known how long days 1 through 5 were. They could have been a very long time or relatively short. Not given. The record says the Holy Spirit moved/worked on the waters etc, i.e did whatever work needed to be done on each day. Light was applied by the HS at just the right amount to evaporate the waters below enough to form a canopy atmosphere. Again, not given as to how long.
And so on from there.
You're missing the point that I'm trying to make, Buz. Your claim appears to be that the world - this planet - was somehow uncountably different pre-Flood. I don't believe that you dispute the standard Biblical reading that the Flood happened somewhere about 4000 to 6000 years ago. I'm not interested here in how far back the history of the universe goes before that. I'm simply looking at your assertion that - whatever the world was like before the Flood - as a result of the Flood the world went through cataclysmic changes. Not just new seas or new continents or mountains much higher than mountains had ever been before, but more drastic changes such as the loss of the "vapor canopy" and major alterations in the atmosphere.
In fact, if I understand you, your claim is that even things like radiometric dating are unreliable because of how much the Flood affected the world. If you mean that atomic decay rates were affected, that means major changes in the nature of matter itself. Regardless, what I was pointing out was that, if what you're saying is true, somehow this abrupt, world-altering event was so transforming that it appears to have left no traces of it ever happening. Whether from archeology, geology, physics, astronomy, or any other discipline, any physical evidence that you care to examine actually demonstrates no abrupt change of that nature anywhere in the date range that you're looking at. I would even dare to say that there is no evidence anywhere of the laws of physics suddenly shifting at any time in the measurable past. There is just nothing there to mark this claimed huge event. There is only measurable evidence, from many disciplines, showing a verifiable, continuous history going back for millions and billions of years.
Most of what you claim is unknowable is actually very understandable and knowable, Buz. The universe is a fascinating place. I really am sorry that much of what you appear to believe about it is flatly contradicted by the facts. But it is. Your suppositions and musings have no basis other than your reading of scripture and your imagination.
Or, as Willow (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) once said: "You're just making up made up things."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 11:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4529 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 72 of 126 (546706)
02-13-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Buzsaw writes:
Perhaps you misunderstood my reason for the flood/carbon dating connection. It was not the flood perse, but the pre-flood canopy atmosphere which, imo, should affect the dating methology. The vaporized water in the atmosphere relatively suddenly became condensed liquid, leaving relatively little in the atmosphere to protect the planet from direct sun rays, thus diminishing the quality of life on the planet and effecting the mother carbon 14/daughter nitrogen atom decay.
Buz, you're still making up made-up things.
There is no evidence at all of any global change in the time period you're referring to, and no evidence of any sort of change of the magnitude you're positing at any point that I can think of. The only evidence of a "vapor canopy" is that you want there to be one. There's no mechanism for suspending water like that in the air, nor is there any physical evidence of the sort of climate change you're describing. (I at least give you credit for not proposing the Kent Hovind model of a giant ice shell surrounding the planet.)
Here's an analogy, Buz. Say I want to speculate that most of the Grimm fairy tales were originally found in the Old Testament. Now, of course they're not. There's no evidence in any manuscript of stories about wolves eating grandmothers or girls with long blond hair living in the tops of towers. And yet, without actually looking anything up or providing anything verifiable to support my claim, I instead just keep insisting that it's possible that they really are there. Maybe all I'm basing my case on is that I remember seeing a book of Bible stories when I was little that looked a lot like a book of fairy tales. And in the meantime I refuse to actually go look at a Bible to see for myself that my speculations are simply wrong.
So you can see how frustrating it is at times when you hold on to your speculations and interpretations of Scripture when they are clearly contradicted by facts, facts that aren't so terribly hard to understand and which you can go read about from innumerable reliable sources. It would be insulting of me to disregard your own considerable understanding of the Bible and insist on my own mistaken views. I respect the amount of effort you've put into reading and learning the Bible in depth, and I wouldn't contradict you on a Biblical point unless I could point to chapter and verse to support my claims. Likewise, you may wish to consider that people who have put great effort into becoming expert in or at least knowledgeable about some of the fields in which you're making unsupported assertions really do know what they're talking about.
If your God really does exist, then why would He mislead you into believing things that are not true?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024