Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
347 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 342 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,375 Year: 5,021/14,102 Month: 619/707 Week: 17/157 Day: 17/22 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 115 (477448)
08-02-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
08-02-2008 11:22 AM


Re: "The Real Noah's Ark"
I recall something on TV within the past year or so showing someone actually building an ark.

Sorry for not remembering any more details, or even the country (I think the US), but perhaps some creative googling could scare up the details.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 08-02-2008 11:22 AM Taz has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2008 5:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 48 of 115 (549371)
03-06-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Manifest
03-06-2010 10:47 AM


The flood story is a myth
Wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes are the same kind of animal so you don't need to bring one of every species merely a puppy dog male and female.

Just to respond to one point, which alone suffices to blow the flood story out of the water.

Genetics and archaeology, along with radiocarbon dating, show that wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes developed into separate species earlier than 4,350 years ago, the purported date of the flood.

Are you now going to claim that all of those fields are wrong?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 10:47 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 52 of 115 (549387)
03-06-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Manifest
03-06-2010 1:26 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Some can claim genetic diversity which we observe today cannot have varied so much in 4,400 years but this isn't what we really observe. Fish going into dark caves lose their eyes over a few generations because they don't need them. When they get out of the cave the opposite happen. A certain island has deer which have grown smaller over a few generation because of the small amount of food on the island. Years of selective breeding have produced the chihuahua.

Your response does not address the genetic diversity which we see in those four critters which clearly occurred over a much longer span than 4,350 years, in fact going back millions of years. You are presenting "what ifs" while the history of those critters is well-established by science.

As far as archaeology is concerned in tying this with knowing the age of these different animals having diverged before the flood you would have to tie it in to carbon dating to figure this out which is really what this boils down to. The problem is is if the flood occurred your carbon dating of these fossils wouldn't be reliable due to being heavily affected in this disaster.

Have you ever really studied radiocarbon dating, or are you just going from what the creationist website tell you? If it is the latter, here are some links which will provide a much more accurate overview of the field. When you have looked at a few of these you might know enough to begin to discuss the issue. At that point I'll be happy to try and answer some of your questions.


ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.


Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


Add: As this is getting off topic, please respond on one of the several threads we have dedicated to either radiocarbon or radiometric dating.

Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 1:26 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 65 of 115 (549556)
03-08-2010 6:57 PM


For Manifest
I responded to your cut-and-paste concerning radiocarbon dating on an appropriate thread.

Come on over and let's see what you know about the subject.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1102 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 102 of 115 (669992)
08-07-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by mram10
08-07-2012 7:34 PM


Re: The Biblical Flood never happened.
Welcome to the fray!

My point is this: people that posted in this thread, brought up numerous arguments that were contrary to the biblical account.

Let me run some evidence by you and see what you think. This evidence is not from any website, anti-Christian or not. It is from my own research as an archaeologist.

Two points that can't be ignored from the flood story: the flood was worldwide, and it occurred during historic times. Biblical scholars generally cite a date about 4,350 years ago.

If that story is accurate we should be able to examine sediments of that approximate age and find evidence of a flood, shown by either deposition or erosion. Floods leave distinctive evidence behind and archaeologists and other -ologists are pretty good at deciphering that evidence. (Google "channeled scablands" for some classic examples. Those floods in southern and eastern Washington were limited in area, not global, and about three times older than Noah's flood, but we can see the evidence they left very clearly.)

From my own archaeological research in >100 sites, most of which contain sediments about 4,350 years old, I have yet to see evidence of a flood in any of them. This alone disproves the idea of a global flood at about that time. (My colleagues across the country and across the world report similar lack of flood evidence at that time period.)

If you disagree with this finding, you can perform your own experiment: a global flood would have left evidence globally, including in your back yard. You can learn some archaeology and sedimentology and check for yourself! It is easier to do in archaeological sites, so perhaps you can take some classes and go on a field school that will be working with a site of the proper age. In any case, you don't have to take my word for it, you can conduct the experiment yourself. But don't get your hopes up. Modern geology developed through efforts to prove the flood occurred, and the folks trying to do that gave up just about 200 years ago.

A second line of evidence: In a cave in southern Alaska a skeleton was found and dated to ca. 10,300 years ago. It had a very distinct mtDNA pattern, designated D4h3. That mtDNA has been found in living individuals on the west coasts of both North and South America. This evidence by itself shows that there was no extinction of humans in the intervening time. Rather, we have continuity of that mtDNA pattern where the flood story would require total replacement by a mtDNA pattern spreading out from the Near East. From my own archaeological research I have a similar example of continuity of mtDNA, in this case Haplotype A2, from about 5,300 years ago to the present.

I welcome your responses to this evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by mram10, posted 08-07-2012 7:34 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021