God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I had hopes for you, but you are unrepentant. At least, as long as you post nothing of substance and keep repeating ad homonym attacks, and show no respect for others in the slightest, you will continue to make Christians look more attractive and those opposed less attractive to others. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I'm suggesting that before 3000 BCE is educated guesswork, as long as uniformitarian assumptions (including the fact that there couldn't possibly have been recent climatic INTENSE changes) are also held to, because before 3000 BCE there is no documentary evidence of... society.

Am I beholden to you, to answer every point you make? And every point everyone else makes, too? Many of your points and those of others are mere variations on a theme.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I didn't express how C14 works. I pointed out how when it was a new science, it was first tested by matching documentary dating to C14 dating.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

I said "uniform assumptions" and not "uniform dating". I'm aware that mass spectrometry and C14 dating is never to be undertaken lightly and is very serious business.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm suggesting that before 3000 BCE is educated guesswork, as long as uniformitarian assumptions (including the fact that there couldn't possibly have been recent climatic INTENSE changes) are also held to, because before 3000 BCE there is no documentary evidence of... society.

Assuming that a miraculous, unsupported, unsubstantiated claim is little more than theological posturing is not anti-academic. There isn't some great uniformitarian conspiracy against your religious doctrine. If there was evidence for such an even as is recorded in the Bible, then modern discoveries would flesh it out. The fact that the opposite is true speaks volumes about the claim found therein... We know, for example that the great iron wall spoken of in the Koran is little more than mythology because there is no evidence of such a wall, right? We know that the pantheon of gods living on Mount Olympus are little more than mythological fabrications because we have hiked Mount Olympus and there are no gods there, correct? Similarly, we know that the mythological flood of Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the mythological flood of Noah from Genesis never happened because there is no evidence of such an occurrence, correc....."No that last one is true because it's what I believe."

If that's your wish, then fine. But you cannot claim validity of an event simply because you like the idea that the event took place.
I really like the concepts and ideas fueled by the preliminary circumstancial evidence that we may exist within a Multiverese. But I don't open or participate in threads on this forum harping about its existence because, truth of the matter is, there may very well be no such thing. I don't distort limited aspects of Cosmology and Physics in a weak attempt to prove that my preferred manner of existence is factually accurate.

See the correclation?

And to assert that anything prior to 3,000 BCE is educated guesswork is both quite ignorant of whole fields of academia and also really insulting to the thousands of scientists and researchers who dedicate their entire professional lives to discovering the stories of our past. Again, I charge that you prefer this view of science because it's the only way that you can reconcile your faith with the actual data provided by professionals in the field. You accept the parts of the their discoveries which validate your worldview and then outright reject the parts of the very same research which discredits it... That's willful ignorance, my friend, and something that should be beneath you.

Am I beholden to you, to answer every point you make? And every point everyone else makes, too? Many of your points and those of others are mere variations on a theme.

Well, no. You're not.
But we are part of a rather long and flowing dialogue, and I think I've engaged you quite pleasantly. I don't take the time to write these posts with the intention of merely preaching or talking down to you but to help educate you and challenge you in areas where there are holes in your logic based on your presuppositions. I don't write these posts to not be engaged. While some of my questions are rhetorical, they are at least through provoking in challenging your assertions, are they not? That is, after all, why I put them there.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't express how C14 works. I pointed out how when it was a new science, it was first tested by matching documentary dating to C14 dating.

Yes, and that is a lie.

Amazing isn't it how every single one of the 'evidences' you give turns out to be false? How do you explain that? A perfect 100% failure for the honesty of your claims - why do you think that is the case?

 

[outhouse]

I had hopes for you, but you are unrepentant.

Because you are anti academic, with refusal of facts in academia. Facts I have posted that are backed by the worlds scientific academies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, and that is a lie.

Amazing isn't it how every single one of the 'evidences' you give turns out to be false? How do you explain that? A perfect 100% failure for the honesty of your claims - why do you think that is the case?

You might want to research the infancy of C14 dating.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Assuming that a miraculous, unsupported, unsubstantiated claim is little more than theological posturing is not anti-academic. There isn't some great uniformitarian conspiracy against your religious doctrine. If there was evidence for such an even as is recorded in the Bible, then modern discoveries would flesh it out. The fact that the opposite is true speaks volumes about the claim found therein... We know, for example that the great iron wall spoken of in the Koran is little more than mythology because there is no evidence of such a wall, right? We know that the pantheon of gods living on Mount Olympus are little more than mythological fabrications because we have hiked Mount Olympus and there are no gods there, correct? Similarly, we know that the mythological flood of Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the mythological flood of Noah from Genesis never happened because there is no evidence of such an occurrence, correc....."No that last one is true because it's what I believe."

If that's your wish, then fine. But you cannot claim validity of an event simply because you like the idea that the event took place.
I really like the concepts and ideas fueled by the preliminary circumstancial evidence that we may exist within a Multiverese. But I don't open or participate in threads on this forum harping about its existence because, truth of the matter is, there may very well be no such thing. I don't distort limited aspects of Cosmology and Physics in a weak attempt to prove that my preferred manner of existence is factually accurate.

See the correclation?

And to assert that anything prior to 3,000 BCE is educated guesswork is both quite ignorant of whole fields of academia and also really insulting to the thousands of scientists and researchers who dedicate their entire professional lives to discovering the stories of our past. Again, I charge that you prefer this view of science because it's the only way that you can reconcile your faith with the actual data provided by professionals in the field. You accept the parts of the their discoveries which validate your worldview and then outright reject the parts of the very same research which discredits it... That's willful ignorance, my friend, and something that should be beneath you.



Well, no. You're not.
But we are part of a rather long and flowing dialogue, and I think I've engaged you quite pleasantly. I don't take the time to write these posts with the intention of merely preaching or talking down to you but to help educate you and challenge you in areas where there are holes in your logic based on your presuppositions. I don't write these posts to not be engaged. While some of my questions are rhetorical, they are at least through provoking in challenging your assertions, are they not? That is, after all, why I put them there.

1. There are evidences of many other things in the Bible besides the Flood, outside the Bible.

2. I was simply making a case for the Flood as wiping out all that went before, thus setting up history to begin around 5,000 BP.

3. I'm not wanting in any way to insult or demean pre-history researchers, but they know as well as we do that they are forced to rely on radiometric and other dating methods since documents do not go back before 5,000 BP. A look at any websites on "history/pre-history" will confirm my assertion.

4. I didn't respond to every point you made because showing me ten examples of radiometric dating is the equivalent of asserting the validity of it once.

5. I actually do something much different from employ willful ignorance. Every time, not just some of the time, someone demonstrates to me a piece of evidence, be it a biblical "contradiction" or evidence(s) from science that seem not harmonious with scripture, I research it. Willful ignorance is opposed to research, thinking about painful issues, and study. I also don't shy away from debate. I bet we both know both Christians and skeptics who would be afraid to discuss these things online, but we're discussing them... however, if you post tables of geological strata without commenting as to why radiometric and/or strata dating and/or dating strata from fossils within is valid, please don't take it as a "point" if I don't reply.

 

[outhouse]

You might want to research the infancy of C14 dating.

You might want to research REAL facts.


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.

 

[Bunyip]

You might want to research the infancy of C14 dating.

I have done. I have used it. You might want to see if you can make a point against evolution that turns out to be true. So far you haven't.

 

[jonathan180iq]

1. There are evidences of many other things in the Bible besides the Flood, outside the Bible.

Sure. There are a whole handful of factual historical places mentioned in the Bible that actually existed. I'm not disputing that.
There are also, however, dozens of claims that are so mythological and over-the-top that only the staunchest fundamentalist creationist would attempt to defend it.

2. I was simply making a case for the Flood as wiping out all that went before, thus setting up history to begin around 5,000 BP.

Which would be fine, except that there's the little problem of all the preceding millenia of human history... If the flood supposedly happened when you say it does, it didn't really do anything to set back humanity, did it? Since there is plenty of human activity prior to, during, and after the flood, what change did it actually cause?

Also, based on previous attempts of yours to reconcile this flood with science, you've tried to argue that it happened very deep in the past, like millions of years or something. Now you've placed it sometime around 5,000 BCE... That's not very consistent, is it? Factual events can be dated, and they can't/don't happen in non-contiguous fashion. It either happened millions of years ago, when there were no humans around, or it happened smack dab in the middle of human history, yet caused no real change or problems... Which was it?

3. I'm not wanting in any way to insult or demean pre-history researchers, but they know as well as we do that they are forced to rely on radiometric and other dating methods since documents do not go back before 5,000 BP. A look at any websites on "history/pre-history" will confirm my assertion.

Yeah, who is questioning their dating methods though? There are entire fields of scientific research which have gone into radiometric and geological dating. Are you going to attempt to tear them down because you don't like the implications that their research has on your claim?

What your dismissal of academic fields actually does is highlight your need to demean or belittle certain fields of study in order to maintain your presupposed worldview. Since you recognize that these areas of study are problematic for your Global Deluge hypothesis, you attempt to tear them down as being academically unreliable. If you can remove one very obvious academic obstacle to your religious claim, then that would seemingly boost the legitimacy of your claim, right?

The problem is, the only support you have for tearing down these areas of study is your presupposition and your faith in the Bible... You know that there was a Flood not because of archaeological or geological evidence, but because the Bible tells you so. And you know the Bible is true because you believe in the Bible. That's circular reasoning, man. None of your premises or your conclusions are substantiated by anything other than your faith. That's a serious problem in a debate.

4. I didn't respond to every point you made because showing me ten examples of radiometric dating is the equivalent of asserting the validity of it once.

So you recognize that there are numerous examples of radiometric dating being valid. Good.

Logically, then, you'll stop trying to assert that anything dated after 5,000 BCE is just a lucky guess, right?

5. I actually do something much different from employ willful ignorance. Every time, not just some of the time, someone demonstrates to me a piece of evidence, be it a biblical "contradiction" or evidence(s) from science that seem not harmonious with scripture, I research it. Willful ignorance is opposed to research, thinking about painful issues, and study. I also don't shy away from debate. I bet we both know both Christians and skeptics who would be afraid to discuss these things online, but we're discussing them... however, if you post tables of geological strata without commenting as to why radiometric and/or strata dating and/or dating strata from fossils within is valid, please don't take it as a "point" if I don't reply.

The "point" then needs to be reassessed, seeing as how not only have I given you illustrations explaining the geological events we've been discussing, but I've also included a personal story which highlights the very same principles from those illustrations in action. Not only that, but you just admitted in the previous response that you've been given 10 examples of the validity of radiometric dating. If your only rebuttal to that is "Well, I still don't like it." Then I think we can move on, having accepting the fact that radiometric dating and the timeline of human pre-history is pretty accurate. It's at least certainly more accurate than saying "There was a flood because the Bible said there was..."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure. There are a whole handful of factual historical places mentioned in the Bible that actually existed. I'm not disputing that.
There are also, however, dozens of claims that are so mythological and over-the-top that only the staunchest fundamentalist creationist would attempt to defend it.


Which would be fine, except that there's the little problem of all the preceding millenia of human history... If the flood supposedly happened when you say it does, it didn't really do anything to set back humanity, did it? Since there is plenty of human activity prior to, during, and after the flood, what change did it actually cause?

Also, based on previous attempts of yours to reconcile this flood with science, you've tried to argue that it happened very deep in the past, like millions of years or something. Now you've placed it sometime around 5,000 BCE... That's not very consistent, is it? Factual events can be dated, and they can't/don't happen in non-contiguous fashion. It either happened millions of years ago, when there were no humans around, or it happened smack dab in the middle of human history, yet caused no real change or problems... Which was it?



Yeah, who is questioning their dating methods though? There are entire fields of scientific research which have gone into radiometric and geological dating. Are you going to attempt to tear them down because you don't like the implications that their research has on your claim?

What your dismissal of academic fields actually does is highlight your need to demean or belittle certain fields of study in order to maintain your presupposed worldview. Since you recognize that these areas of study are problematic for your Global Deluge hypothesis, you attempt to tear them down as being academically unreliable. If you can remove one very obvious academic obstacle to your religious claim, then that would seemingly boost the legitimacy of your claim, right?

The problem is, the only support you have for tearing down these areas of study is your presupposition and your faith in the Bible... You know that there was a Flood not because of archaeological or geological evidence, but because the Bible tells you so. And you know the Bible is true because you believe in the Bible. That's circular reasoning, man. None of your premises or your conclusions are substantiated by anything other than your faith. That's a serious problem in a debate.



So you recognize that there are numerous examples of radiometric dating being valid. Good.

Logically, then, you'll stop trying to assert that anything dated after 5,000 BCE is just a lucky guess, right?



The "point" then needs to be reassessed, seeing as how not only have I given you illustrations explaining the geological events we've been discussing, but I've also included a personal story which highlights the very same principles from those illustrations in action. Not only that, but you just admitted in the previous response that you've been given 10 examples of the validity of radiometric dating. If your only rebuttal to that is "Well, I still don't like it." Then I think we can move on, having accepting the fact that radiometric dating and the timeline of human pre-history is pretty accurate. It's at least certainly more accurate than saying "There was a flood because the Bible said there was..."

I wrote "asserting the validity". I didn't acknowledge any form of radiometric dating as un-assumptive, consistent or supported by the facts in evidence.

Can we agree on something for the sake of harmony? It's called "pre-history" before circa 5,000 BP because there are no documents, and only very widely debated dating of marginal items. I believe Noah's Flood occurred circa 5,000 BP, and find it more than coincidence that modern man, supposed to have been on the scene circa 100,000 years, failed to develop anything we'd REALLY call tools, documents, languages, society, agronomy, etc. until suddenly, explosively, circa 5,000 BP. That's all. Your choice to interpret this statement as consistent with Flood lore or no.

Thanks!

 

[outhouse]

only very widely debated dating of marginal items.

Factually false.

You might want to research REAL facts.


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.

 

[outhouse]

, failed to develop anything we'd REALLY call tools, documents, languages, society, agronomy, etc. until suddenly, explosively, circa 5,000 BP

All false.

Its why you have ZERO credible sources

 

[`mud]

Some people that I know, are having a lot of fun with this thread !
Am so am I, just reading it !
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

I wrote "asserting the validity". I didn't acknowledge any form of radiometric dating as un-assumptive, consistent or supported by the facts in evidence.

So, just for clarity, you're making the argument that radio-metric dating is pretty much useless and not supported by evidence, right? You're saying that it's all assumptive, inconsistent, and not supported by the evidence, aren't you? You're saying that all the Archaeological and Paleontological researchers out there, who spend decades of their personal lives studying these methods, are pretty much just making stuff up based on their desire to somehow undermine your creationist timeline?

I just want to know what I'm dealing with here, since this admission of yours is directly contradictory to your previous statements about accepting academia, and believing that the Earth is millions of years old, and saying that you believe in evolution...

Can we agree on something for the sake of harmony? It's called "pre-history" before circa 5,000 BP because there are no documents, and only very widely debated dating of marginal items.

Again, for the record, you just said that there are no documents and only very marginal items, dated in a widely debated manner....

Jiahu, China: Symbols engraved into the backs of turtle shells, collections of black and white colored rocks, constellation patterns, and flutes date back to 6600 BCE and illustrate a clear sign of culture and advanced thought. As any archaeologist or anthropologist will tell you "Where there is prosperity, there is art."
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061329

Natural History Magazine

As evidence of a controversial find, there's also The Vinca Symbols:
Vinča symbols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These date back to sometime between 5300-5600 BCE. There are more than 5,000 symbols and also, as with their pottery and other such artifacts, present rather clear evidence that these people were skilled craftsmen and quite prosperous.

Please note that these symbols, even if the dating is off, show a marked improvement over their symbolic predecessors, which means there's obviously an evolution from simpler writing systems to more complex ones.

Then, supposedly, the FLOOD happened....

What do we see after the "Flood"?
Oddly enough, we find that same continued pattern of writing evolving from more primitive to more precise systems, almost as if nothing at all had changed.

The first complete writing systems generally accepted are those of the Sumerians and Egyptians, sometime between 3,000-4,000 BCE, right? But even those aren't exactly spot on fully decipherable languages. They're a continued pattern of constantly evolving human symbolic language patterns, very similar to their "pre-flood" ancestors.

Writing - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Also of note, isn't it odd that all of these ancient "pre-flood" graves and cultures can be easily excavated and can be found in their proper geologic strata since, as you say, the flood was such a violent and cataclysmic event that all of the layers were laid down at one and all of the strata mixed up? Isn't that one aspect of your Pro-Flood arguments? I mean, if the same flood which supposedly eroded the rocky Appalachians in a matter of 150 days was also covering these prehistoric cultures, shouldn't they have all been messed up and tossed this way and that? Yet, oddly enough, we see these ancient peoples and their artifacts resting exactly where they were put to rest...

Why didn't the cataclysmic flood waters from 5,000 BCE erase the cave and rock art found all over the world?

Chauvet Cave, France. - This is more than 30,000 years old...

I believe Noah's Flood occurred circa 5,000 BP, and find it more than coincidence that modern man, supposed to have been on the scene circa 100,000 years, failed to develop anything we'd REALLY call tools, documents, languages, society, agronomy, etc. until suddenly, explosively, circa 5,000 BP.

So you maintain a belief in a global catastrophic global flood, which supposedly killed all of humanity, and shuffled all of the geologic layers, occurred in 5,000 BCE, despite the fact that you've been shown plenty of evidence to contradict such a claim?

And am I to assume that you don't consider finely crafted stone tools to be on any value in the evolution of the production of what you consider to be modern tools? You wouldn't agree that it takes a tremendous amount of knowledge and dexterity to fashion something like a stone axe? You don't consider it a very obvious thing to make stone tools before the knowledge of forging metals is discovered? Metals do come from rock, after all... Wouldn't stone tools naturally be precursors to the softest metal tools? Wouldn't the paleolithic age naturally precede the bronze age, like the academic timeline of human history portrays?

That's all. Your choice to interpret this statement as consistent with Flood lore or no.

Well, based on just the little that I've shown you, this supposed Flood lore doesn't hold much weight, does it?

As I said many pages before, the reason that most creationists refrain from placing a date on their Flood is because they know how easy it then becomes to tear down the whole assertion. Once a date is given, the mountains of evidence which contradict floor theology can be used to completely shatter the idea that this Global Biblical Flood ever happened. What surprises me, given your claimed academic background, is that you don't go for the much more tenable position of the localized devastating flood of Mesopotamia, circa 6,000 BCE.... Look it up.

Mount Etna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Thousands of years ago, the eastern flank of the mountain experienced a catastrophic collapse, generating an enormous landslide in an event similar to that seen in the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The landslide left a large depression in the side of the volcano, known as 'Valle del Bove' (Valley of the Ox). Research published in 2006 suggested this occurred around 8000 years ago, and caused a huge tsunami, which left its mark in several places in the eastern Mediterranean. It may have been the reason the settlement of Atlit Yam (Israel), now below sea level, was suddenly abandoned around that time.[11]"

6th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• A massive volcanic landslide off of Mt. Etna, Sicily caused a megatsunami which devastated the eastern Mediterranean coastline on the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe.[1]

Atlit Yam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Underwater excavations have uncovered rectangular houses and a well. The site was covered by the eustatic rise of sea-levels after the end of the Ice age. It is assumed that the contemporary coast-line was about 1 km (half-mile) west of the present coast.[2][3] Piles of fish ready for trade or storage have led scientists to conclude that the village was abandoned suddenly. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 10-storey (40 m or 131 ft) tsunami to engulf someMediterranean coastal cities within hours. Some scientists point to the apparent abandonment of Atlit Yam around the same time as further evidence that such a tsunami did indeed occur.[4][5]"


It is entirely possible that an oral tradition from that event, which undoubtedly would have killed many people and severely damaged several local cultures was passed down until it was finally put into writing sometime around 1800-1200 BCE by some Semitic scribes. This story would have developed and evolved into what you came to know as the Flood of Noah, preceded of course by the Flood of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This position, of an ancient flood which seeded the Biblical mythological narrative, can be easily substantiated. The position that you are taking, however, is quite the opposite, which is why you must resort to attacking academic study and science in order to defend your mythology.

 

[David M]

including the fact that there couldn't possibly have been recent climatic INTENSE changes.

Show me anywhere that this assumption is made. You are being dishonest in claiming that any such assumption exists.

The assumption that is made is that such things don't happen without leaving some form of evidence.

There was no global flood in the period that humans have been around because firstly there is no evidence for it and secondly every piece of evidence we do have says it didn't happen.

Of course whats so ludicrous about your claim is that scientists do agree that intense climate change has happened in the past and that may happen in the future. A good example is the eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera, which is based on evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe Noah's Flood occurred circa 5,000 BP, and find it more than coincidence that modern man, supposed to have been on the scene circa 100,000 years, failed to develop anything we'd REALLY call tools, documents, languages, society, agronomy, etc. until suddenly, explosively, circa 5,000 BP.

Tools:
olduvai axe tools, around 1,000,000-1,500,000 years old (yes, that's million years).
spears, clothes, ornaments, have been found that are hundreds of thousands of years.

Documents: look into cave paintings and jewelry.

Language, society, agronomy, well, ask yourself, why did it take 10,000 years from that point before we started the electronic revolution, or technology, or science? It's because it's not a linear progression, but exponential. Information doubled between 1 AD to 1700 AD, about. Then it doubled in a couple of hundred years. Then it doubled less than hundred years. Now it's doubling every 18 months. It's spread and acceptance of new knowledge that affects this. It took a 3 million years for Australopithecus to evolve to Homo, and further to Homo sapiens, and H.s. had to exist for a few hundred years before knowledge had grown enough for societies to come about. And perhaps it had to do with changing climate too. But a flood would zero out knowledge, reset it, and destroy previous knowledge, so a flood is the worst explanation to why tools, documents, languages, society, and agronomy began and exploded. Did the flood somehow suddenly give them superpowers and superknowledge? A family of handful of people somehow started a society, city, training horses, domesticating cows, dogs, figure out all different kinds of seeds... it's the least probable explanation for the explosion of society and knowledge. Sorry.

(You know, Internet came about when Earth was hit by a meteor in the 80's and all life on Earth was destroyed except for a family of 12 who survived in a space ship that went to the moon. (!))

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, just for clarity, you're making the argument that radio-metric dating is pretty much useless and not supported by evidence, right? You're saying that it's all assumptive, inconsistent, and not supported by the evidence, aren't you? You're saying that all the Archaeological and Paleontological researchers out there, who spend decades of their personal lives studying these methods, are pretty much just making stuff up based on their desire to somehow undermine your creationist timeline?

I just want to know what I'm dealing with here, since this admission of yours is directly contradictory to your previous statements about accepting academia, and believing that the Earth is millions of years old, and saying that you believe in evolution...



Again, for the record, you just said that there are no documents and only very marginal items, dated in a widely debated manner....

Jiahu, China: Symbols engraved into the backs of turtle shells, collections of black and white colored rocks, constellation patterns, and flutes date back to 6600 BCE and illustrate a clear sign of culture and advanced thought. As any archaeologist or anthropologist will tell you "Where there is prosperity, there is art."
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061329

Natural History Magazine

As evidence of a controversial find, there's also The Vinca Symbols:
Vinča symbols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These date back to sometime between 5300-5600 BCE. There are more than 5,000 symbols and also, as with their pottery and other such artifacts, present rather clear evidence that these people were skilled craftsmen and quite prosperous.

Please note that these symbols, even if the dating is off, show a marked improvement over their symbolic predecessors, which means there's obviously an evolution from simpler writing systems to more complex ones.

Then, supposedly, the FLOOD happened....

What do we see after the "Flood"?
Oddly enough, we find that same continued pattern of writing evolving from more primitive to more precise systems, almost as if nothing at all had changed.

The first complete writing systems generally accepted are those of the Sumerians and Egyptians, sometime between 3,000-4,000 BCE, right? But even those aren't exactly spot on fully decipherable languages. They're a continued pattern of constantly evolving human symbolic language patterns, very similar to their "pre-flood" ancestors.

Writing - Ancient History Encyclopedia

Also of note, isn't it odd that all of these ancient "pre-flood" graves and cultures can be easily excavated and can be found in their proper geologic strata since, as you say, the flood was such a violent and cataclysmic event that all of the layers were laid down at one and all of the strata mixed up? Isn't that one aspect of your Pro-Flood arguments? I mean, if the same flood which supposedly eroded the rocky Appalachians in a matter of 150 days was also covering these prehistoric cultures, shouldn't they have all been messed up and tossed this way and that? Yet, oddly enough, we see these ancient peoples and their artifacts resting exactly where they were put to rest...

Why didn't the cataclysmic flood waters from 5,000 BCE erase the cave and rock art found all over the world?

Chauvet Cave, France. - This is more than 30,000 years old...




So you maintain a belief in a global catastrophic global flood, which supposedly killed all of humanity, and shuffled all of the geologic layers, occurred in 5,000 BCE, despite the fact that you've been shown plenty of evidence to contradict such a claim?

And am I to assume that you don't consider finely crafted stone tools to be on any value in the evolution of the production of what you consider to be modern tools? You wouldn't agree that it takes a tremendous amount of knowledge and dexterity to fashion something like a stone axe? You don't consider it a very obvious thing to make stone tools before the knowledge of forging metals is discovered? Metals do come from rock, after all... Wouldn't stone tools naturally be precursors to the softest metal tools? Wouldn't the paleolithic age naturally precede the bronze age, like the academic timeline of human history portrays?



Well, based on just the little that I've shown you, this supposed Flood lore doesn't hold much weight, does it?

As I said many pages before, the reason that most creationists refrain from placing a date on their Flood is because they know how easy it then becomes to tear down the whole assertion. Once a date is given, the mountains of evidence which contradict floor theology can be used to completely shatter the idea that this Global Biblical Flood ever happened. What surprises me, given your claimed academic background, is that you don't go for the much more tenable position of the localized devastating flood of Mesopotamia, circa 6,000 BCE.... Look it up.

Mount Etna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Thousands of years ago, the eastern flank of the mountain experienced a catastrophic collapse, generating an enormous landslide in an event similar to that seen in the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. The landslide left a large depression in the side of the volcano, known as 'Valle del Bove' (Valley of the Ox). Research published in 2006 suggested this occurred around 8000 years ago, and caused a huge tsunami, which left its mark in several places in the eastern Mediterranean. It may have been the reason the settlement of Atlit Yam (Israel), now below sea level, was suddenly abandoned around that time.[11]"

6th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• A massive volcanic landslide off of Mt. Etna, Sicily caused a megatsunami which devastated the eastern Mediterranean coastline on the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe.[1]

Atlit Yam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Underwater excavations have uncovered rectangular houses and a well. The site was covered by the eustatic rise of sea-levels after the end of the Ice age. It is assumed that the contemporary coast-line was about 1 km (half-mile) west of the present coast.[2][3] Piles of fish ready for trade or storage have led scientists to conclude that the village was abandoned suddenly. An Italian study led by Maria Pareschi of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology in Pisa indicates that a volcanic collapse of the Eastern flank of Mount Etna 8,500 years ago would likely have caused a 10-storey (40 m or 131 ft) tsunami to engulf someMediterranean coastal cities within hours. Some scientists point to the apparent abandonment of Atlit Yam around the same time as further evidence that such a tsunami did indeed occur.[4][5]"


It is entirely possible that an oral tradition from that event, which undoubtedly would have killed many people and severely damaged several local cultures was passed down until it was finally put into writing sometime around 1800-1200 BCE by some Semitic scribes. This story would have developed and evolved into what you came to know as the Flood of Noah, preceded of course by the Flood of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This position, of an ancient flood which seeded the Biblical mythological narrative, can be easily substantiated. The position that you are taking, however, is quite the opposite, which is why you must resort to attacking academic study and science in order to defend your mythology.

Regretfully, we are back to where we were before, you mixing ad populum arguments with appeals to emotion. I'm aware that prior to 5,000 BP, we MUST employ radiometric dating and make assumptions (proximity of relics to geologic strata, etc.) to date them. You, I believe, but I'm not sure, since you've never responded to my statements in this matter, are also aware that human documents do not exist prior to 3000 BC.

But clearly you don't want to hear any arguments made regarding issues with radiometric dating, because it would bother you personally to feel like archaeologists are wrong. I would be happy to discuss this with you if you will do so logically and be willing to follow truth to whatever end.