Summations Only

We deal with evidence, you deal with belief.These threads are clear evidence of that, and you can't deny what you have spent thousands of posts illustrating.Your only interest in science is destroying it and its findings.Bah!

You want to get back the the few ideas you have distorted enough to support your fantasy, while ignoring all the evidence that disproves your fantasy?Creation "science" in a nutshell!

We understand what the debate is about. We are in the science forum, so the debate is about evidence.And we understand why you approach it the way you do. You are a religious apologist, and you have to make the answers come out in a way that agrees with your beliefs, no matter what the evidence may be to the contrary.And we have understood both of these points from the beginning.

Radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate, and all the creationist equivocating does not change that a bit.The reason they hate radiocarbon dating, and the results it provides, is that it disproves many of their religious beliefs.The global flood is one of those beliefs; a young earth is another.The contortions they go though to try and get around the dating and old earth evidence would be amusing, if they weren't so pathetic! I don't think even they believe the nonsense they post trying to discredit scientific findings.More likely, they just know science is wrong, and so it doesn't matter what the evidence says--its still wrong.Creation "science" at work, eh?(By the way, I'm sending six more radiocarbon samples to the lab tomorrow, and will have about eight more to send later in the month.)

The problem with Faith is the evidence.Faith will not accept any evidence which contradicts her religious belief.Other than the educational (to us) and amusement value, we are just wasting our time presenting evidence to her.But to me this is a very good lesson in abnormal psychology and how the human mind can be literally brainwashed into believing things that are patently untrue.

And a floodist perspective is what? Something like: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 8,244, 8,255 HALLELUJAH! 4,350, 4,350, 4,350, 4,350... Bottom line: Your count disagrees with your god's creation, which was left for everyone to see.

The fact that radiocarbon dating is quite accurate.You have this unfounded belief to the contrary, but neither you nor Mindspawn nor any other creationist has been able to show where and how radiocarbon dating is incorrect.And most of the reasons you and other creationists select in an attempt to show radiocarbon dating is inaccurate are factually incorrect.It makes no difference whether your facts are incorrect through simple ignorance, willful ignorance, abysmal ignorance, or disbelief. Creationists as a whole have a very poor track record for getting the facts right.

Ummmm. That sounds like a personal attack to me. So does that.But to address the point you are kind of making, there is such a thing as a fact. It is something like this:

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can be considered a fact.

What you are actually complaining about is the treatment you get when you deny facts that are patently obvious to virtually everyone else in the world because in some manner they conflict with your religious beliefs.You don't try to do science and examine that fact, and see upon what it is based. If it disputes your religious belief you just deny it.That is not science. That is the exact opposite of science.I suspect you don't get half the kicking around that you deserve.

No, the real problem is that you can't accept any evidence that argues against the flood. But for some reason you keep coming up with "explanations" for that contrary evidence. Unfortunately, you don't have the knowledge or background to base your explanations on either evidence or established theory, so your explanations don't stand up to criticism.And, also unfortunately for you, the evidence points to an old earth. Your ad hoc explanations are easily shown to be incorrect and unsupported by the evidence. To keep coming up with more and more far-fetched "explanations" which all turn out to be wrong destroys any credibility to which you might aspire. The words of St. Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis should be of some guidance to you as they seem to have been written specifically with you in mind. You stick to your arguments no matter what the evidence shows.And you suggest our thinking is effected by ingrained bias? You should examine your own bias. You have admitted you are locked into the biblical account of things no matter what the evidence shows. You're nothing but a blind robot, incapable of any learning from the evidence of the real world.I don't know why you are here as you certainly are not willing to accept anything we post as evidence.Are you here to preach, or witness, or what?

Are you totally incapable of learning anything?Science is not about "proof," as we have told you many times. As such, your statement that the "unwitnessed past is unprovable" is totally meaningless.What science is after is evidence (data, facts) which are then explained by hypotheses and theories. Facts alone don't tell you much. Theories organize those facts and give them meaning. Powerful theories not only explain all the relevant facts, are contradicted by no relevant facts, but also allow predictions to be made. The success or failure of those predictions reflect back on the accuracy of the underlying theory.But for some silly reason, you and other creationists keep harping about proof. Maybe try photography, mathematics, or if those don't suit, alcohol.But you really shouldn't bother science and scientists with your gross misunderstandings of how science works. You "prove" St. Augustine right every time you do.

Actually, scientists of various kinds have quite a bit of knowledge about what floods would do, having actually studied them. You, on the other hand, are quite the opposite.Let's take an example--the Channeled Scablands of eastern and southern Washington. Those provide excellent evidence of what a large flood can do (actually a series of large floods).Now, those floods are about three times older than the supposed worldwide flood, so to make things fit you have to make up all sorts of false stories about dating methods. Otherwise you have the insurmountable problem of a small series of old floods being easily found while a much larger and much more recent flood is totally lacking in evidence.You can't find any recent evidence to agree with your claims, so you have to look far back into prehistory in search for something--anything--that you can misconstrue as a worldwide flood. You and other creationists end up equating the worldwide flood with events from a few million years ago all the way back to over 250 million years ago. (The fact that creationists can't agree on the details of anything doesn't seem to bother you folks.) What a joke! Utter nonsense. The problems we find with your claims are real, and they are supported by real evidence. But you just ignore that evidence, and everything is all right, eh?Once again, creationists are the exact opposite of scientists. Scientists find evidence and try their best to explain it with hypotheses and theories. Creationists start with a religious belief and manipulate, distort, misrepresent, deny, and otherwise abuse the facts until they can fool themselves into believing that their religious myth cycle is correct.Heinlein was right: "Belief gets in the way of learning." And unfortunately for you, you seem to be the poster child for this.

Ah, but that's not correct. While I may be tedious, I'm not stupid, and unlike you I have actually studied some of these fields. I am very familiar with radiocarbon dating, for example. I have submitted something like 650 samples so far, and I worked on another eight today to submit early next week. Do you think I'd waste all that time and money if there was nothing to it--as creationists claim (without evidence)? And I have evaluated a number of creationist's claims, but have yet to find anything that isn't pretty silly. If you really want, I could share some of those with you.Oh, and lest I forget, I am delivering a lecture on one particular aspect of radiocarbon dating at some professional meetings in March.But more on radiocarbon dating: Just a few weeks ago RAZD sent Mindspawn running for cover with the evidence he presented supporting radiocarbon dating and countering Mindspawn's claims. When it comes to dealing with evidence, creationists just can't keep up and eventually have to turn tail and run.And as for evolution, that was half my study in graduate school so I did learn a bit about it, even if that learning is some decades in the past. Your "learning," on the other hand, seems to be limited to, "It can't have happened and that settles it!" What a joke!But to get to another of your points: some fields of science are "REAL HARD" and have "proof?" (I suppose those are the ones that don't disprove your beliefs.)This is just made up creationist nonsense designed to support your otherwise unsupportable beliefs. Everyone but a few creationists knows it is nonsense.You just cling to those beliefs if that makes you happy, but you really should stop trying to pretend there is scientific evidence for them or that they have anything remotely to do with science.

Look at the evidence. The Channeled Scablands are well dated to the end of the last ice age. The mythical global flood is usually dated to about 4,350 years ago, about a third that age.The Channeled Scablands contain a lot of evidence about those early floods, including the direction, flow rates, dates, etc.All of that evidence should have been erased by a much larger flood that occurred more recently. That more recent and much larger flood should have left evidence of its own for us to read. That is not the case.Another bit of evidence: we have continuity of mtDNA from a site in southern Alaska from about 10,300 years ago to living individuals along the west coast. That is good evidence for population movements, but contradicts the global flood about 4,350 years ago. From one of my sites I have mtDNA from over 5,200 years ago which shows continuity to living individuals in the same area. That also contradicts a flood about 4,350 years ago.The evidence against a worldwide flood about 4,350 years ago just goes on and on.You can try to twist the dating around to fit your beliefs, but it just doesn't work. Otherwise, why did Mindspawn run screaming into the night when confronted with the evidence RAZD provided?

Ancient tablet reveals new details about Noah's Ark prototypeAncient tablet reveals new details about Noah's Ark prototype | Fox News

​

The tablet went on display at the British Museum on Friday, and soon engineers will follow the ancient instructions to see whether the vessel could actually have sailed.

​

It's also the subject of a new book, "The Ark Before Noah," by Irving Finkel, the museum's assistant keeper of the Middle East and the man who translated the tablet.

​

Finkel got hold of it a few years ago, when a man brought in a damaged tablet his father had acquired in the Middle East after World War II. It was light brown, about the size of a mobile phone and covered in the jagged cuneiform script of the ancient Mesopotamians.

​

More...

​

From Wiki: "Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC."In other words, that tablet is far older than Genesis. Perhaps by over 3,000 years.