|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4977 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
I thought that at least one apologist would try to use the information about the NCA 5000 years ago - apparently not. Shame, that would have been entertaining...:-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Coyote writes: I have some from my own archaeological research, dated to about 5,300 years ago. It matches living individuals in the same area, showing that there was no disruption at the date you accept for a global flood. Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
I think that's because even if there was a flood, it wouldn't alter anything like genetic data.
Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Buzsaw writes: Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology? Buz, we already are well aware of what you think is true. The science threads are for discussing the evidence for what you think is true. Unless you're ready to present the evidence for what you think is true there is no need to keep reminding us of what you think is true. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bikerman Member (Idle past 4977 days) Posts: 276 From: Frodsham, Chester Joined: |
Nor can any such difference be very great, since we know that there were many flourishing civilisations at the time of the proposed flood and there is no major (certainly no global) hiatus at that time in the historical record. The can trace the egyptians right through the supposed period of flood. No evidence of them building rafts for the pyramids. No possibility of them being killed-off since the lineages can actually be traced..
Bonkers notions deserve ridicule and contempt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3395 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology? How would it be different? How would it affect dating techniques ? How do you know these things? Please give detailed, verifiable answers. If you cannot give convincing responses, what you are doing is equivalent to lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Buz writes: Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology? Because we have (and you have been given) direct evidence that the conditions before the supposed flood we NOT significantly different.
quote: from this thread We know for a fact that there was no Biblical Flood and that the conditions before the date of the supposed Biblical Flood were very little different than today. The Flood and your supposed pre-flood conditions are totally refuted, false, untrue. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology?
Because there was no such flood! That's what we have been trying to convey to you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And we know with a very high degree of certainty that the conditions before the date of the supposed flood were NOT different.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Why did you ignore what I posted about lineage and geneology? You make one argument, that gets shot down, then you move on to another and wait for that one to get shot down too? Then, when you think we've all forgotten that your initial assertion was destroyed, you go back to that one.
the planet would have been much different pre-flood. You've never supplied any valuable evidence that this is the case, or how it was different. Any assertions to this that you have made, have been proven to be in error. The last time planet earth was much different than it is now, was during the last ice age: which was far before any alleged flood you claim happened. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology?
Why do you continually fail to explain what the conditions where that would cause all the dating methods to be in error and yet still agree with each other? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Before that "if" can be taken into account, you have to be very specific about what those pre-flood conditions were and how they would skew the dating methods. As I recall, you've made vague comments about a "vapour canopy" but you've never given any evidence, either Biblical or scientific, that it existed nor have you explained how it could skew anything. Why do you keep ignoring that if there was a Genesis flood, the planet would have been much different pre-flood, skewing your dating methodology? The simple answer to your question is that people are ignoring what you haven't provided. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Percy writes: Buz, we already are well aware of what you think is true. The science threads are for discussing the evidence for what you think is true. Unless you're ready to present the evidence for what you think is true there is no need to keep reminding us of what you think is true. Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it. Creationists always berate scientists for the assumptions they make. But take a look at the assumptions Baumgardner, in the article you cited, makes! Baumgardner (2005) has suggested, based on earlier studies (Brown 1979; Giem 2001; Morton 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann 1992), that the pre-Flood biosphere and atmosphere just prior to the Flood could have had, conservatively, 300—700 times the total carbon relative to our present world’s biosphere and atmosphere. Then if we assume the total number of 14C atoms was similar to what exists in today’s world, and these were uniformly distributed throughout the pre-Flood biosphere which had 500 times more total carbon than today’s biosphere, then the resulting 14C/C ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level, or about 0.2 pMC, which is equivalent to an apparent radiocarbon age of more than 50,000 years. Problems: there is no evidence for a flood, and hence no evidence for a pre-flood atmosphere radically different (300-700 times as high!) in total carbon. But given carbon levels 300-700 times higher, we are for some reason to asked to assume the total number of 14C atoms is similar to what we have today. All of these assumptions are necessary to make radiocarbon dates older than the date of the purported flood come into line with a young earth belief. The assumptions scientists make have a solid basis, while these creationist assumptions are pulled out of thin air because they are critically needed to support both a young earth and a global flood. There is no evidence for any of them! Creation "science" as usual. An example of the types of assumptions scientists make: we can count tree rings, annual deposits in bogs and glaciers, and a variety of other annular events. These different methods all agree with one another quite closely. Knowing the age of particular tree rings, we can determine the levels of C12 and C14 (as well as C13) in each of these rings. This information, when compared with the age of each ring established by direct counting, gives us the correction factor to account for atmospheric fluctuation (and to calibrate radiocarbon dates). It also lets us check on the levels of the various carbon isotopes back to about 12,000 years (using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains). Those levels are similar to the levels we see today, give or take about 10% due to atmospheric fluctuation. All of this lets us calibrate radiocarbon dates using empirical data, not assumptions. We have directly measured tree rings from particular ages and this lets us account for atmospheric fluctuation. It also tells us what the atmosphere was like for the past 12,000 years. The levels of the various carbon isotopes has remained relatively constant (within about 10%). This is just one example of an "assumption" used by scientists. It has a very solid basis, and is not just a wild guess as creationists are wont to claim. Compare this with the "assumptions" in the paragraph from Baumgardner, above. Those claims are not only not supported by evidence, they are flatly contradicted by real-world evidence. In other words, your creationists sources are lying to you, same as always. (Note: no web searches were used in the creation of this post.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To add a little to Coyote's excellent reply: Baumgartner's claims deal ONLY with radiocarbon dating. They do not apply to ANY other method. They make assumptions about the amount of carbon and radiocarbon present pre-flood and no supporting evidence is offered for this figure. He adds in assumptions about magnetic fields and accelerated radioactive decay. It's not clear what the relevance of the alleged Flood is to any of this - it MIGHT be somehow connected to the carbon and radiocarbon estimates but I doubt that it is sufficient to explain the figures, and the magnetic field changes and changes to radioactive decay rate are clearly additions, not based on anything in the flood story. The carbon figures are irrelevant to many dating methods so you're left with no reason to assume that the flood or pre-flood environment affected them at all. He does NOT explain why the alleged effects are completely missing in the data used to calibrate carbon dates. Nor does the article seem to take a serious look at even the data he does talk about. So really this doesn't help you. It's a long way from supporting your claims since it relies on adding other factors to even get the desired results from one dating method, and the only parts that relate to the Flood and pre-Flood environment don't apply to geological dating methods at all. Even if the evidence weren't against Baumgartner's hypothesis you'd need to offer a lot, lot more to support your claim. And yet you expect others to unquestioningly agree with your claim. Despite your repeated failure to offer any valid reason why it should be considered to be even possibly true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024