God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

See the problems with this stance?

I don't think he does.

Purposely hates education and knowledge through academia. Thinks he can debunk it all with faith.

 

[Salvador]

I'm familiar with the pro- and anti-genetic Adam and Eve and 10,000 progenitors arguments.

Ever since I was about 10-years-old, I've always doubted that all the various human races are descended from just one couple such as Noah and his wife or Adam and Eve. Genetic studies have concluded that there must have been at least 10,000 progenitors to have caused the amount genetic diversity found in humans. The genetic evidence, In addition to the geological and archeological evidence, does strongly suggest that a global flood never happened anytime in human history.

 

[outhouse]

Genetic studies have concluded that there must have been at least 10,000 progenitors to have caused the amount genetic diversity found in humans

There may have been at one time.


They also say there was a KT event 48000 ish years ago that bottlenecked us as a species, and almost wiped us out. Numbers would have been reduced dramatically and by some estimates only a few thousand people

 

[Salvador]

There may have been at one time.


They also say there was a KT event 48000 ish years ago that bottlenecked us as a species, and almost wiped us out. Numbers would have been reduced dramatically and by some estimates only a few thousand people

I think you're referring to the Toba catastrophe. There's still a huge difference between a population bottleneck of some few thousand people from 48,000 years ago and a population bottleneck of 2 people from 4,350 years ago. I think it's possible that the amount of genetic diversity in today's population could have evolved from a gene pool of some few thousand people over a period of a couple thousand generations. However, I doubt that it's possible for the amount of genetic diversity in today's population to have quickly evolved at a miraculous rate from the genes of only one couple who lived back a couple hundred generations ago.

 

[outhouse]

I doubt that it's possible for the amount of genetic diversity in today's population to have quickly evolved at a miraculous rate from the genes of only one couple who lived back a couple hundred generations ago.

Factually impossible.

 

[`mud]

In the history of absence, lies the presence of tomorrow.
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes it is. It's trusting in things unseen.
This conversation, however, deals with things that are quite obviously seen, yet ignored by Creationists and Biblical Literalists because they don't fit into your preferred worldview.



Yet here you are making arguments for a global catastrophic deluge that, admittedly, has some very serious problems from the onset, namely that there is not enough water on Earth to have achieved such an event...



Which is what it is...
Your faith in the Genesis Deluge, and even your preferred religion, is not at issue here. Your assertion that this flood was a factually historical event is.



Yes I am.

6th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Timeline of human prehistory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Am I to assume by the question you asked that you believe this catastrophic global flood took place sometime around 5,000 BCE?



Firstly, saying that Pre-Flood society has to be dated by a certain methods implies that you know when this flood took place, thus giving a line of division between Pre and Post Flood societies.

So, when did this event take place?

And secondly, why limit it to C-14? Is it because of your assumption that this mythological event actually took place and that all things which occurred before the flood are not open to testing by more accurate methods? Or because you know that C-14 dating has limitations which will help to support your view?

Radiocarbon Dating



I don't doubt that you've read some well-written articles by people who share your bias. But did you bother to question those papers, or did you nod your head in a happy little round of confirmation bias?
Just to give you an example, did these position papers bother to address the actual geologic and radio-metric dates of these two ranges?

The Appalachians have exposed surfaces over a billion years old. The Rockies have exposed surfaces that are only 300 million years old... That's a colossal gap in time. Did those position papers address that issue? Did Noah's flood actually last 700 millions years? Now sure, there are parts of the core of the Rockies that are nearly a billions years old, but nothing exposed. But even if we assume that both orogenies were contemporary of each other, why didn't the flood, which I'm guessing you're going to suggest eroded the Appalachians, do as much damage to the Rockies? Wouldn't the fact that the Rockies still being sharp and majestic, using your logic, imply that they were above the water? I mean, if the Flood severely eroded the Appalachians like it did, surely it must have supplied the same devastating force on the Rockies, right? And if not, if the Rockies were actually high and dry, then the Biblical explanation that the flood was global and submerged everything would be inaccurate, right?

See the problems with this stance? There's simply no way to reconcile the vast number of differences in the stories, regardless of interpretation.

It's a simple matter. You don't understand what "documentary evidence" is and are confusing it with other methods of dating. C14 is one example of such where real dates from documents were first matched to C14 dates, to create uniform assumptions to extrapolate beyond 3000 BCE, beyond which there aren't documents available.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think he does.

Purposely hates education and knowledge through academia. Thinks he can debunk it all with faith.

You had begun to cite facts in recent posts. I'm disappointed. I've stated numerous times that I love science, appreciate science, and academia. I have two college degrees from secular colleges, not seminaries, and I currently work at a university, a secular university. I have two children currently in two different secular colleges, also. One is pursuing her second degree, the other his first, but plans to pursue a second as well.

I'd appreciate it if you would confine yourself going forward to taking my statements at face value. If you think my scientific facts are weak, attack them. If you feel you have a strong position, defend it. But please stop saying statement that are accusing me of lying about what I know, what I love, and what I believe in, including science, facts, logic and the scientific method.

Thank you.

 

[metis]

It's a simple matter. You don't understand what "documentary evidence" is and are confusing it with other methods of dating. C14 is one example of such where real dates from documents were first matched to C14 dates, to create uniform assumptions to extrapolate beyond 3000 BCE, beyond which there aren't documents available.

Actually C14 is not uniform, thus it needs to be adjusted, and tree rings are typically the most commonly used source for these adjustments.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually C14 is not uniform, thus it needs to be adjusted, and tree rings are typically the most commonly used source for these adjustments.

Dendrochronology.

And then we have thermoluminescence, potassium-argon, archaomagnetic, amino acidic, obsidian hydration, rehydroxylation, and probably more dating methods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It's a simple matter. You don't understand what "documentary evidence" is and are confusing it with other methods of dating. C14 is one example of such where real dates from documents were first matched to C14 dates, to create uniform assumptions to extrapolate beyond 3000 BCE, beyond which there aren't documents available.

Again, I'm well aware of both the benefits and limitations of carbon dating - but what does that have to do with the whole point here? Are you suggesting that the only reliable understandings of history come from what we can date using C-14? Surely you see how that would limit the scope of research into Archaeology and all other forms of human pre-history.

Also, are you suggesting that anything after 3,000-5,000 BCE is just conjecture and guess work?

And finally, in all fairness, I have brought up quite a few more items in my last few posts that aren't being addressed. Is there a reason for this?

 

[metis]

Dendrochronology.

And then we have thermoluminescence, potassium-argon, archaomagnetic, amino acidic, obsidian hydration, rehydroxylation, and probably more dating methods.

Yes. As anthropologists, we send out our stuff to be dated by professionals in the various given areas of their expertise. I know a bit about these techniques and a lot about none of them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. As anthropologists, we send out our stuff to be dated by professionals in the various given areas of their expertise. I know a bit about these techniques and a lot about none of them.

And my understanding is that many times (perhaps not always) several methods are used, to make extra sure. I assume it also depends on how important the artifact is to be tested.

 

[outhouse]

. I've stated numerous times that I love science

No you do not. That's is factual based on your own statements.

You throw away
biology
dating methods
geology
anthropology
History

There is not much you don't throw away.

You literally throw most of it out the window due to faith, you flat refuse credible science picking and choosing what you think is credible or not despite not having the education or knowledge to do so with any credibility.

 

[outhouse]

. But please stop saying statement that are accusing me of lying about what I know, what I love, and what I believe in, including science, facts, logic and the scientific method

You cannot literally pervert science in one hand, and say you have a CREDIBLE passion for it.

Your factually going against the scientific method.

YOUR mistaken that there is a debate here. There is not. YOU are arguing against FACTS.

This is what academia says is fact, and it is factually the opposite of your position, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT AWAY????????????????????



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[metis]

And my understanding is that many times (perhaps not always) several methods are used, to make extra sure. I assume it also depends on how important the artifact is to be tested.

I believe with Potassium-Argon they can use more the one isotope, as well as with some other forms of radiation dating. Again, this is not my area, so I can stand being corrected.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe with Potassium-Argon they can use more the one isotope, as well as with some other forms of radiation dating. Again, this is not my area, so I can stand being corrected.

Yes. That's right. There are a huge array of radiometric methods besides C14. And many chemical methods, where certain chems reacts over time with others, or something like that. Never really learned how all of them worked. I learned how C14 works, 3 times, and I still forget the details after a year or two.

 

[metis]

Yes. That's right. There are a huge array of radiometric methods besides C14. And many chemical methods, where certain chems reacts over time with others, or something like that. Never really learned how all of them worked. I learned how C14 works, 3 times, and I still forget the details after a year or two.

And here I was the only one who forgets? Hmmmmmm, I'm learning something new every day.

 

[Ouroboros]

And here I was the only one who forgets? Hmmmmmm, I'm learning something new every day.

That's the good thing about forgetting, you can always learn something new, even if it's something you already knew once...

 

[Bunyip]

It's a simple matter. You don't understand what "documentary evidence" is and are confusing it with other methods of dating. C14 is one example of such where real dates from documents were first matched to C14 dates, to create uniform assumptions to extrapolate beyond 3000 BCE, beyond which there aren't documents available.

And yet another false claim. No mate, that is not how C14 dating works. Funny how every single one of your 'evidences' turns out to be false. Why is that?