Flood Evidences — revised

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone ,
You may be correct about that study overseen by Dr. Seok Won Hong(?), or Dr. Seon Won Hong(?).
I really don’t know….I can’t seem to verify the study, independent of a religious source. I found the link to it, and the content, copied numerous times though…which means nothing.

I can understand why it would be suppressed!

But I do know you didn’t acknowledge my second link, about the study performed at University of Leicester. Why?

You think I falsely accused you of something, but did I?
Your omission of the U of L study seems to support my statement.

Regarding the Cheetah’s, do we understand everything about DNA? Or bottlenecks for that matter?

It was not "surpressed". At best it appears to have been pseudo science.

I did acknowledge your other link about 35,000 species on the Ark (far too few by the way). And I told you how it was refuted.

Okay, you could float an empty boat, without enough food and supplies with 35,000 animals. So what? That something totally inadequate could float is not evidence for your beliefs. And since it is easily refutable it is not evidence at all.

And you are trying to use an odd argument. Of course we do not know "everything". That is an unreasonable standard. We do know more than enough. We know that such a model predicts and reality refutes it.

That is the nice thing about a well defined model. Even if the maker did not come up with a test others can see what the model implies and test it for him. This one fails.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was not "surpressed". At best it appears to have been pseudo science.

Yes, any natural explanation is vastly preferred in science than one requiring Divine intervention! Even to the point of suppressing it through ridicule (like with those on here who describe their personal paranormal experiences), or threats of job loss (as has happened to professors and scientists alike who just mentioned Intelligence as a possible source of complex design in living things.) Such ideas are anathema to current science; but it won’t always be.

That is the nice thing about a well defined model. Even if the maker did not come up with a test others can see what the model implies and test it for him. This one fails.

The only problem is, no one wants to, see above.

[The Ark could float] So what? That something totally inadequate could float is not evidence for your beliefs. And since it is easily refutable it is not evidence at all.

‘Easily refutable”? No way. The ratios, work. 30:5:3.
If those ratios were common in those ancient times, the Gilgamesh Epic wouldn’t have used such a ridiculous one (9:9:12)! So pardon the pun, but you’re assuming a refutation that holds no water.

According to the account…

1. Who warned Noah of the impending disaster?
2. Who gave Noah those ideal instructions?
3. Who caused the Flood?
4. Who brought the animals to Noah?
5. Who closed the door?
6. Who opened the door afterwards?

It would be naïve & unreasonable to think He left the rest to chance!

We don’t need to be told every detail;
from other Bible writers providing further information, and the Genesis account itself, and the evidences I gave, we have enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, any natural explanation is vastly preferred in science than one requiring Divine intervention! Even to the point of suppressing it through ridicule (like with those on here who describe their personal paranormal experiences), or threats of job loss (as has happened to professors and scientists alike who just mentioned Intelligence as a possible source of complex design in living things.) Such ideas are anathema to current science; but it won’t always be.

Have you already forgotten the purpose of that paper? It was supposed to show that the Ark was ideally built using real physics and engineering. If that was the case it would have been able to pass real peer review. You just refuted your own claim.

The only problem is, no one wants to, see above.

Because it was idiotic nonsense. Now you are projecting again. Real peer reviewed journals do not have, need,or want artificial requirements that one agree that God did not do it. Creationist sites do require anyone that works for them or publishes at their sites swear to a "Statement of Faith". That foolish requirement also makes their work worthless since they are admitting that if they are wrong that they will either lie or react irrationally to being wrong. You are accusing others of doing what your crowd does.

‘Easily refutable”? No way. The ratios, work. 30:5:3.
If those ratios were common in those ancient times, the Gilgamesh Epic wouldn’t have used such a ridiculous one (9:9:12)! So pardon the pun, but you’re assuming a refutation that holds no water.

According to the account…

1. Who warned Noah of the impending disaster?
2. Who gave Noah those ideal instructions?
3. Who caused the Flood?
4. Who brought the animals to Noah?
5. Who closed the door?
6. Who opened the door afterwards?

It would be naïve & unreasonable to think He left the rest to chance!

Dude! Those ratios were never shown to be ideal. There was no flood. There was no magic boat. There were no animals. All of that has been refuted. That makes your questions foolish and pointless. You should be trying to learn how we know that there was no Ark. Let's start with the fact that there is no scientific evidence for it. There is no reliable evidence for it at all.

We don’t need to be told every detail;
from other Bible writers providing further information, and the Genesis account itself, and the evidences I gave, we have enough.

At best you simply do not understand the concept of evidence. You clearly do not even know the plural of "evidence".

You are not without intelligence. If you try, you can learn. The basic concepts are not that hard to understand.

 

[metis]

There is hardly anything logical about the Flood narrative if taken literally, but it makes a great deal of sense if taken figuratively.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is hardly anything logical about the Flood narrative if taken literally, but it makes a great deal of sense if taken figuratively.

It can work as a morality tale. It fails both theologically and scientifically if one interprets it at all literally.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

You forgot your link. I hope you found a proper source.

Without seeing it I am betting that it explains conditions when you cannot use carbon dating and why. If one uses a screwdriver as a hammer that does not mean that screwdrivers do not work.

I'm not surprised he didn't provide the link and you are correct. All of these papers on Radio Carbon dating being "inaccurate" are always papers on ways NOT to use carbon dating or how certain rocks, minerals or elements can cause false positives, for example pillow lava's. These papers provide geologists the knowledge of what not to test for more accuracy, not less...but creationists dishonestly will point to the papers and go "See...these results showed dates far older than they should have been!" Yeah...that was the point of the paper...which is why they don't use things like pillow lava's for carbon dating..... I'd wager as well, that his "link" was either from a dishonest creationist source referring to the paper out of context, or to an article that he skimmed but failed to understand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is hardly anything logical about the Flood narrative if taken literally, but it makes a great deal of sense if taken figuratively.

Métis, who were the “angels that sinned”, at 2 Peter 2:4-9? Why are they mentioned in reference to the Flood? They are the same ones of Jude 1:6.
When you recognize that they were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4(regarding women,”taking all whom they chose”), you’ll understand the reason the flood was global. Otherwise, such destruction would have been overkill.
But even in the Gospels, detailing Jesus’ ministry, we read that demons could ‘enter swine.’

(Doesn’t the Catholic Church claim to perform exorcisms? Why?)

The entire planet needed to be cleaned, and rid of their influence.

That this event really happened (angels coming to the earth to have relations with women), is seen in the common thread of the ancient myths from different, unrelated cultures: that gods cohabited with women and produced offspring. (Hindu, Norse, Greek, Asian, and many others relate similar actions.)


Have a good one.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm not surprised he didn't provide the link and you are correct. All of these papers on Radio Carbon dating being "inaccurate" are always papers on ways NOT to use carbon dating or how certain rocks, minerals or elements can cause false positives, for example pillow lava's. These papers provide geologists the knowledge of what not to test for more accuracy, not less...but creationists dishonestly will point to the papers and go "See...these results showed dates far older than they should have been!" Yeah...that was the point of the paper...which is why they don't use things like pillow lava's for carbon dating..... I'd wager as well, that his "link" was either from a dishonest creationist source referring to the paper out of context, or to an article that he skimmed but failed to understand.

I posted the link already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not surprised he didn't provide the link and you are correct. All of these papers on Radio Carbon dating being "inaccurate" are always papers on ways NOT to use carbon dating or how certain rocks, minerals or elements can cause false positives, for example pillow lava's. These papers provide geologists the knowledge of what not to test for more accuracy, not less...but creationists dishonestly will point to the papers and go "See...these results showed dates far older than they should have been!" Yeah...that was the point of the paper...which is why they don't use things like pillow lava's for carbon dating..... I'd wager as well, that his "link" was either from a dishonest creationist source referring to the paper out of context, or to an article that he skimmed but failed to understand.

Yep. A variation on the Black and White fallacy. "If it does not work on this one example it cannot work on any examples". There are papers out there as you pointed out, telling people when the dating method does not work and why. It is never "Carbon 14 does not work". It must be a least 20 years or more since creationists have come up with new arguments. They are perpetually recycling old debunked claims.

When it comes to C14 the most common source of error is the Reservoir Effect. If there is old carbon in the system it will give an incorrect date. So sea life is almost never dated by C14, the old carbon overwhelms the system. And of course creationists do not understand this when they try to claim that a fire could have added new carbon to the shroud of Turin. They never do the math and see how much carbon would have to have been added. It has been a while, but the shroud would have been so heavy from new CO2 that it would have almost doubled in weight. Not only is there no mechanism for adding so much CO2 to the system, it would be more than just a little noticeable if it happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted the link already.

Really? I can't find it. Is it one that has already been debunked several times? I bet that it is.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

At best you simply do not understand the concept of evidence. You clearly do not even know the plural of "evidence".

You are not without intelligence. If you try, you can learn. The basic concepts are not that hard to understand.

It's not really about intelligence with him, it's about emotion, credulity and cognitive dissonance. He's too invested in his idea to actually consider evidence contrary to his position. So he must necessarily lie, hold conspiracy theories and dismiss out of hand both history and science where ever it is inconvenient. For example, when I provided him a detailed listing of all the civilizations that are cataloged and recorded with dates existing before the flood and lived on for thousands of years after with no interruption. If there was a global flood, we should see an interruption in all these histories, but do not. You know what his response was? He said he didn't believe there was recordings of any civilizations before the flood. He just flat out denied that all these histories from around the world exist at all. You can't argue reason with people like this or with evidence, because they know what it is....they just actively choose to be intellectually dishonest about the evidence. That's where the cognitive dissonance comes in, because he has to pretend he's not lying, while also claiming to be a christian where one of the central tenants is not to lie. That's a personal mental problem and not one easily overcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, let's see if @Hockeycowboy has learned anything over the years. Here is a picture that refutes your claims about the Grand Canyon and the mythical Flood of Noah. Can you tell us how it does this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not really about intelligence with him, it's about emotion, credulity and cognitive dissonance. He's too invested in his idea to actually consider evidence contrary to his position. So he must necessarily lie, hold conspiracy theories and dismiss out of hand both history and science where ever it is inconvenient. For example, when I provide him a detailed listing of all the civilizations that are cataloged and recorded with dates existing before the flood and lived on for thousands of years after with no interruption. If there was a global flood, we should see an interruption in all these histories, but do not. You know what his response was? He said he didn't believe there was recordings of any civilizations before the flood. He just flat out denied that all these histories from around the world exist at all. You can't argue reason with people like this or evidence, because they know what it is....they just actively choose to be intellectually dishonest about the evidence. That's where the cognitive dissonance comes in, because he has to pretend he's not lying, while also claiming to be a christian where one of the central tenants is not to lie. That's a personal mental problem and not one easily overcome.

Ultimately they do rely on what I like to call the Ostrich Defense. Now we know that ostriches do not actually hide their heads in the sand, but that is what creationists do almost all of the time.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

Yeah I noticed that too.
Alright….
Here’s one from last year, recognizing a problem with accuracy.

You know nothing about me. So don’t impugn my character.

Directly from that post...no link. Go back to it, because you did not post it.

 

[metis]

Métis, who were the “angels that sinned”, at 2 Peter 2:4-9? Why are they mentioned in reference to the Flood? They are the same ones of Jude 1:6.
When you recognize that they were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4(regarding women,”taking all whom they chose”), you’ll understand the reason the flood was global. Otherwise, such destruction would have been overkill.
But even in the Gospels, detailing Jesus’ ministry, we read that demons could ‘enter swine.’

That has 0 relevance to what I wrote.

(Doesn’t the Catholic Church claim to perform exorcisms? Why?)

Yes.

Didn't Jesus give the Apostles the power to bind & loosen sins, deal with demons, and can't we pray for each other and against evil?

The entire planet needed to be cleaned, and rid of their influence.

But there is 0 shred of evidence for an actual worldwide flood, plus the logistics of having all the various types of animals in one location and going on one boat is simply logistically impossible.

But what is possible and also logical is that the Genesis Flood narratives [there's more than one] can be viewed as to counter the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives. Thus, the real importance of the Flood narratives are basic basic Jewish morals they teach, and so may people overlook that. Within that perspective, it's VERY meaningful.

Have a good one.

Same to you, so take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Directly from that post...no link. Go back to it, because you did not post it.

Grief, I did miss that link on C14! I don’t know how, but I did. (I actually forgot to post 2 links, in post #730. I followed up the other in post 734.).
Sorry...

Here it is, on C14 dating...
Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot

Lyell’s “the present is the key to the past,” simply doesn’t fit.
Even from his to ours, there've been several global natural events affecting carbon in our atmosphere! The 1883 Krakatoa eruption is one that comes to mind. The present Global Warming we're struggling with, is another. The Icelandic volcanoes are another.
Recalibration will be ongoing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Grief, I did miss that link on C14! I don’t know how, but I did. (I actually forgot to post 2 links, in post #730. I followed up the other in post 734.).
Sorry...

Here it is, on C14 dating...
Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot

Lyell’s “the present is the key to the past,” simply doesn’t fit.
Even from his to ours, there've been several global natural events affecting carbon in our atmosphere! The 1883 Krakatoa eruption is one that comes to mind. The present Global Warming we're struggling with, is another. The Icelandic volcanoes are another.
Recalibration will be ongoing.

Okay, there is nothing there about C14 dates being unreliable. It only states that they are being made more accurate. In other words they still refute your beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That has 0 relevance to what I wrote.

It’s completely relevant.

You said a Global Flood wasn’t needed; from the Bible (which describes the event we’re debating), I showed you why it was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s completely relevant.

You said a Global Flood wasn’t needed; from the Bible (which describes the event we’re debating), I showed you why it was.

How on Earth did you ever do that? I think that you may have overrated the contents of one of your posts . . . again.

By the way did you even check out the examples listed in your article and see how much the dates had changed? I am serious when I said that this recalibration does not help your argument at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What? Amazing.
First,

Okay, there is nothing there about C14 dates being unreliable

Then....

It only states that they are being made more accurate

If the dating is “more accurate” now, the dates accepted prior were less accurate, I.e., unreliable.

Even saying “more accurate,” doesn’t mean reliable.

60% is better than 50%....But it’s nothing I’d bet on.