Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 106 of 320 (574342)
08-15-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by hooah212002
08-15-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Flood Legends
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...:-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by hooah212002, posted 08-15-2010 11:14 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 107 of 320 (574481)
08-16-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Coyote
08-14-2010 11:15 PM


Re: Genetic data
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2010 11:15 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 08-16-2010 8:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 08-16-2010 8:51 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 111 by Woodsy, posted 08-16-2010 9:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-16-2010 9:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2010 10:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 115 by hooah212002, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 116 by DrJones*, posted 08-16-2010 12:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 08-16-2010 1:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 108 of 320 (574493)
08-16-2010 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Genetic data
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?
I think that's because even if there was a flood, it wouldn't alter anything like genetic data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Bikerman, posted 08-16-2010 8:54 AM Huntard has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 320 (574497)
08-16-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Genetic data
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 110 of 320 (574498)
08-16-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Huntard
08-16-2010 8:35 AM


Re: Genetic data
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Huntard, posted 08-16-2010 8:35 AM Huntard has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 111 of 320 (574504)
08-16-2010 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: 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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 112 of 320 (574511)
08-16-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Genetic data
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:
There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.
What do we know about Oetzi?
First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.
He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.
His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.
He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.
He was around 40-50 years old when he died.
He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.
His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.
There was blood from four other people on him.
Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.
The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.
So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 320 (574517)
08-16-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: 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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 08-16-2010 10:46 AM Coyote has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 114 of 320 (574523)
08-16-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
08-16-2010 10:16 AM


Re: Genetic data
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2010 10:16 AM Coyote has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 115 of 320 (574525)
08-16-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: Genetic data
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 116 of 320 (574533)
08-16-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


Re: 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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 117 of 320 (574537)
08-16-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 7:43 AM


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?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 7:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 320 (574625)
08-16-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
08-16-2010 8:51 AM


Re: Genetic data
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Percy, posted 08-16-2010 8:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Coyote, posted 08-17-2010 12:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 08-17-2010 2:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 121 by jar, posted 08-17-2010 10:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2010 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 119 of 320 (574635)
08-17-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 11:05 PM


Assumptions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 120 of 320 (574640)
08-17-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Buzsaw
08-16-2010 11:05 PM


Re: Genetic data
quote:
Baumgartner has offered some evidence which appears to make sense. I suggest a reading and responses to questionable statements in it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Buzsaw, posted 08-16-2010 11:05 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