God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[`mud]

And they haven't stopped since !
~
'mud

 

[jonathan180iq]

I knew Flintstones was a documentary! I knew it!

 

[BilliardsBall]

What time period is that?


Where is the evidence?



No time period, it never happend

I apologize. Sincerely. The Flood occurred 3,001 BC, five am in the morning, Greenwich mean time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are my ad populum arguments? I've submitted very clear and precise evidences of things that quite obviously existed prior to your supposed flood timeline and continued through it. I've made no appeals to emotion at all. Quote me if you feel otherwise and I'll correct you.



Yeah, there was no "paper" documentation prior to 3100 BCE. My whole point is so what? If people wrote on tree bark, mud brick, stone tablet, or turtle shell, what does it matter? There was writing before your supposed flood point. Even the earliest dates that you want to agree on are supported by radiometric dating, not by someone writing their name and date at the top of a piece of papyrus... So again, the point is, so what if papyrus didn't exist prior to 3100 BCE. There's plenty of evidence for other forms of writing prior to that, per my previous post.



This is a debate man. Just type away. You can submit any and all objections that you have to radiometric dating and I'll address them.
I can almost assure you, however, that there is nothing that you can possibly bring up that hasn't either been addressed before or that isn't already known by those who actually use the dating methods that your bias will cause you to want to criticize.

The very reason that multiple dating methods are used for each piece before a date is applied to an object or artifact comes from the very knowledge of failures and shortcomings within each method.



With what? You're responding to here to Ouroboros about stone tools and clothing being millions of years old... How can you agree with those ages and simultaneously attempt to discredit radiometric and geologic dating?



Did they, now? And where is your evidence for them? Outside of a religious text that is not supported to have been written any earlier than 1200 BCE, where if your evidence that Noah and his family were factual historical people who lived in a boat and sailed around the planet with all the animals on board for back in 5,000 BCE?



Again, how do you substantiate this claim other than simply asserting that it's fact?
Any documentation with Noah's name on it?
Any type of letter or coinage with God's face?
If your standard for discrediting my very reasonable assertion that the academic timeline of human history is correct stems from the argument that there are no documents prior to 3100 BCE, then why do you limit your criticism when it comes to your own fantastic claims?

Selective reasoning is the bane of academic research. It's the most self-evident expression of bias, and it's a flaw in logical fallacy.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, I'm possibly mistaken, but I'm reading most of your statements as rhetorical. I've rarely seen someone more closed-minded make a statement like:

I can almost assure you, however, that there is nothing that you can possibly bring up that hasn't either been addressed before or that isn't already known by those who actually use the dating methods that your bias will cause you to want to criticize.

Are you an expert in radiometric dating? Are you aware of the intricacies of corrections that need to be made for C14 dating, for one example, and that people trained in radiometric mass spectrometry need to work for multiple years to be considered competent at making adjustments?

I'm not saying this to insult you or assail your position as a person. I'm trying to restate that I don't have much desire to send evidences/facts about radiometric dating to anyone who says, "Go ahead, you're wrong, I've heard it all, and you have a confirmatory bias anyway". That is insulting to me and also demonstrates you certainly have a confirmatory bias. You might also be insecure in your position (which is different than being insecure as a person, so please don't take that personally). If you're that sure of the accuracy of radiometric dating (as a lay person? I don't know your credentials) you would let me make my case(s) and then destroy it on the weight of the evidence, but saying "It's doesn't matter what facts you present, you are wrong" is not how formal debate is made and is belittling to both me and to you.

Again, if you want to go wherever truth leads, you don't actually need me for an agent. Jesus will reveal truth to you.

What I meant by ad populum is stuff like posting 20 examples of tools and things whose age was confirmed by radiometric dating, for days after I said there are some issues with the methods employed, as if I've never heard of things that archaeologists and others believe existed pre-history, pre-Flood. It's like you don't listen to me at all. But I am listening to you.

Statements like "so what if there are no documents before 5000 BP--we know they must have written on tree bark or something" is also a little beneath you, unless you'd like to post citations where pre-history alternative documents (tree bark) exist. A tool is not a document, nor is a hole in a Neanderthal's skull. It seems you are unaware that it's called pre-history because there are no documents prior to a certain date.

Until then, your tree bark documents are what you accuse the Bible stories of being, myths.

 

[jonathan180iq]

...most of your statements are rhetorical...

Sure, with the intention of highlighting the fact that you've no answer to them.
Rhetorical questions can serve as direct attacks on your position based on the answers that you would have to give to them.

"Why is there no evidence of the flood as a factual event unless we throwout everything we know about Geology?"

That's a rhetorical question, with a very serious underlying message...

Are you an expert in radiometric dating? Are you aware of the intricacies of corrections that need to be made for C14 dating, for one example, and that people trained in radiometric mass spectrometry need to work for multiple years to be considered competent at making adjustments?

I'm not saying this to insult you or assail your position as a person. I'm trying to restate that I don't have much desire to send evidences/facts about radiometric dating to anyone who says, "Go ahead, you're wrong, I've heard it all, and you have a confirmatory bias anyway". That is insulting to me and also demonstrates you certainly have a confirmatory bias. You might also be insecure in your position (which is different than being insecure as a person, so please don't take that personally). If you're that sure of the accuracy of radiometric dating (as a lay person? I don't know your credentials) you would let me make my case(s) and then destroy it on the weight of the evidence, but saying "It's doesn't matter what facts you present, you are wrong" is not how formal debate is made and is belittling to both me and to you.

The whole point was that you can make whatever arguments you like. If you have this whole weight of evidence sitting around which would dispel the validity of radiometric dating, then submit it. You don't have to ask for permission when we are quite obviously in discussion about something... Just throw it out there. There is nothing wrong, however, with me making the statement that I'm quite certain that you aren't going to present anything that I haven't seen or heard before. Maybe you'll surprise me, but I doubt it.

And Yes, I do have a bias. I have said that from the beginning. I am biased against fantastic claims. I am biased against mythology. I am biased towards scienftic naturalistic understandings. But that has never meant that I am not open to new evidences or discoveries. I just have a problem with people who claim that most academic understanding and credibility is without merit because their particular preferred religion tells a contradictory story to human history and origins.

If you, or any creationist for that matter so as not to seem like I'm being personal, had any valid arguments for your position then it would be rightly considered by the larger academic community. The fact that your position can only be maintained by throwing out incredible amounts of scientific knowledge and hundreds of years worth of new data and discoveries says everything I need to know about the validity of the argument.

If something is true, it is true regardless of how you or I feel about it, right?
If the Creation story and the Noahic Flood were factual historical events, why is there nothing but wishful conjecture to support it? That's a very simple question.
And if you have an answer to that; if you have the smoking gun which would forever change the course of science, then present it. If you don't, then stop claiming that it's factually historically accurate.

Again, very simple.

Again, if you want to go wherever truth leads, you don't actually need me for an agent. Jesus will reveal truth to you.

Jesus will reveal the truth to me? Jesus the magically birthed Jewish zombie who only partially fulfills the requirements of being a 2,000 year old Messiah for a religion that you nor I follow?

Alright...

What I meant by ad populum is stuff like posting 20 examples of tools and things whose age was confirmed by radiometric dating, for days after I said there are some issues with the methods employed, as if I've never heard of things that archaeologists and others believe existed pre-history, pre-Flood. It's like you don't listen to me at all. But I am listening to you.

So I am not supposed to present the data which I believe supports my arguments because you don't agree with the scientific dating methods used to date such things?
Doesn't that pose a very serious problem with the discourse? If you don't accept data that's contradictory to your position simply because it's contradictory, then how are we going to get anywhere?
Please note that you have yet to present an argument for why radiometric dating is flawed - you've simply stated that it is and that you don't like it.

For all the back and fourth between you and Outhouse, you're kind of making his point, aren't you? If you reject the academic research that I'm presenting because you don't like it, then you are against academia and knowledge, aren't you? You can easily combat that by submitting a rebuttal, but until you do that, we can only assume that you don't legitimately have one... thus, your arguments thus far amount to simply refusing academia... It's very simple.

Statements like "so what if there are no documents before 5000 BP--we know they must have written on tree bark or something" is also a little beneath you, unless you'd like to post citations where pre-history alternative documents (tree bark) exist. A tool is not a document, nor is a hole in a Neanderthal's skull. It seems you are unaware that it's called pre-history because there are no documents prior to a certain date.

By documents, I must assume that you are talking about papyrus or paper or something similar, since I have quite obviously shown you "documents" which pre-date the 5,000 BCE timeline that you've proposed. Human symbolically engraving turtle shells are "documents", are they not? I've also admitted that the definition of documents that I believe you are using do not exist prior to 3100 BCE because that's the first evidence that we have of papyrus being used.

Are you going to claim that humans never wrote anything down until the Egyptians invented papyrus?

Until then, your tree bark documents are what you accuse the Bible stories of being, myths.

Turtle shells with writing on them, clay tablets with writing on them, and paleoglyphs are not mythological - they are only a field trip away...

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you an expert in radiometric dating? Are you aware of the intricacies of corrections that need to be made for C14 dating, for one example, and that people trained in radiometric mass spectrometry need to work for multiple years to be considered competent at making adjustments?

Even if true, how does it change anything of what's being said? It took you and me years to learn how to write these posts... therefore they're wrong? To turn the table, are you an expert in radiometric dating?

Besides, exactly which date of what thing is potentially wrong? Many of the things that have been mentioned here are older than 50ky, which makes them target for other dating methods, and not C14.

 

[outhouse]

I apologize. Sincerely. The Flood occurred 3,001 BC, five am in the morning, Greenwich mean time.

No it factually did not.

Many civilizations existed at that exact time a thousand year before and a thousand years after with no break in their cultures.

No date you will ever provide will work as mythology is what it is, not even your humorous date here is good for anything but showing the weakness of your position.

 

[outhouse]

Again, I'm possibly mistaken

Yes you have been the entire thread.


You have successfully given examples of fanaticism though.

 

[outhouse]

Until then, your tree bark documents are what you accuse the Bible stories of being, myths.

Sorry you denial means nothing but fundamentalism.

The bible started after 3000 BC by people far removed from any actual event that had to do with the origins of man or any life on the planet.

Very little of the bible is actually even accurate on any event prior to 3000 BC as Israelites did not write down their true heritage nor their ethnogenesis.


Its why you have not provided a replacement hypothesis to the origins of life. Because you only have faith, you have ZERO credible evidence.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I apologize. Sincerely. The Flood occurred 3,001 BC, five am in the morning, Greenwich mean time.

Are you joking with him or do you believe this...?

Cuz, there's a tree out in California that's older than this.

It was cored and found to be roughly 5,064 years old.

 

[outhouse]

Are you joking with him

Yes.

Its just the weakness of his position, and blatant fanaticism

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes.

Its just the weakness of his position, and blatant fanaticism

I never know...
It took him 3 weeks to admit that he thinks the flood happened smack dab in the middle of the Minoan Culture on Crete, so....

 

[outhouse]

I never know...
It took him 3 weeks to admit that he thinks the flood happened smack dab in the middle of the Minoan Culture on Crete, so....

I believe there is a deep debris layer from a tsunami due to the eruption.

But its not evidence for anything other then a tsunami.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I believe there is a deep debris layer from a tsunami due to the eruption.

But its not evidence for anything other then a tsunami.

Yeah I tried to make the point that there was a very serious flooding event in the Mesopotamian region around 6,000 BCE caused when Mt. Etna exploded. It's quite likely the source of most of these Mesopotamian flood mythologies, but he totally skirted that.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah I tried to make the point that there was a very serious flooding event in the Mesopotamian region around 6,000 BCE caused when Mt. Etna exploded. It's quite likely the source of most of these Mesopotamian flood mythologies, but he totally skirted that.

And what he is forced to ignore.

Is that the flood mythology in Mesopotamia started from the attested flood in 2900BC when the Euphrates overflowed after a 6 day thunderstorm.

It starts with the epic of King Ziusudra who went down the flooded river on a barge loaded with animals and goods, who landed next to a hill and made an animal sacrifice. The king is also found on the known kings list.

Shortly after we have the Akkadian river flood mythology

Much later we have the epic of Gilgamesh who turns the river flood into a sea deluge in it smythology.

Much much later we have the global deluge of the Israelites.




All of these epics originate from a river flood.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And what he is forced to ignore.

Is that the flood mythology in Mesopotamia started from the attested flood in 2900BC when the Euphrates overflowed after a 6 day thunderstorm.

It starts with the epic of King Ziusudra who went down the flooded river on a barge loaded with animals and goods, who landed next to a hill and made an animal sacrifice. The king is also found on the known kings list.

Shortly after we have the Akkadian river flood mythology

Much later we have the epic of Gilgamesh who turns the river flood into a sea deluge in it smythology.

Much much later we have the global deluge of the Israelites.




All of these epics originate from a river flood.

Good info. I don't think I knew about Ziusudra.

Ziusudra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice!

 

[outhouse]

Good info. I don't think I knew about Ziusudra.

Ziusudra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice!

Not only that the biblical version states it/Noah originated in Mesopotamia.

All of the wording is very similar. So much so its almost unanimous that Israelites plagiarized the earlier mythology.

 

[metis]

Are you joking with him or do you believe this...?

Cuz, there's a tree out in California that's older than this.

It was cored and found to be roughly 5,064 years old.

There are also historical villages in the eastern Mediterranean region that date back roughly 10,000 b.p.

 

[outhouse]

There are also historical villages in the eastern Mediterranean region that date back roughly 10,000 b.p.

We even have Gobekli tepe with 13,500 at the end of the last ice age.

Beer going back 11000 in that area, Gobekli tepe

Many areas 11500 for agriculture in wheat.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure, with the intention of highlighting the fact that you've no answer to them.
Rhetorical questions can serve as direct attacks on your position based on the answers that you would have to give to them.

"Why is there no evidence of the flood as a factual event unless we throwout everything we know about Geology?"

That's a rhetorical question, with a very serious underlying message...



The whole point was that you can make whatever arguments you like. If you have this whole weight of evidence sitting around which would dispel the validity of radiometric dating, then submit it. You don't have to ask for permission when we are quite obviously in discussion about something... Just throw it out there. There is nothing wrong, however, with me making the statement that I'm quite certain that you aren't going to present anything that I haven't seen or heard before. Maybe you'll surprise me, but I doubt it.

And Yes, I do have a bias. I have said that from the beginning. I am biased against fantastic claims. I am biased against mythology. I am biased towards scienftic naturalistic understandings. But that has never meant that I am not open to new evidences or discoveries. I just have a problem with people who claim that most academic understanding and credibility is without merit because their particular preferred religion tells a contradictory story to human history and origins.

If you, or any creationist for that matter so as not to seem like I'm being personal, had any valid arguments for your position then it would be rightly considered by the larger academic community. The fact that your position can only be maintained by throwing out incredible amounts of scientific knowledge and hundreds of years worth of new data and discoveries says everything I need to know about the validity of the argument.

If something is true, it is true regardless of how you or I feel about it, right?
If the Creation story and the Noahic Flood were factual historical events, why is there nothing but wishful conjecture to support it? That's a very simple question.
And if you have an answer to that; if you have the smoking gun which would forever change the course of science, then present it. If you don't, then stop claiming that it's factually historically accurate.

Again, very simple.



Jesus will reveal the truth to me? Jesus the magically birthed Jewish zombie who only partially fulfills the requirements of being a 2,000 year old Messiah for a religion that you nor I follow?

Alright...



So I am not supposed to present the data which I believe supports my arguments because you don't agree with the scientific dating methods used to date such things?
Doesn't that pose a very serious problem with the discourse? If you don't accept data that's contradictory to your position simply because it's contradictory, then how are we going to get anywhere?
Please note that you have yet to present an argument for why radiometric dating is flawed - you've simply stated that it is and that you don't like it.

For all the back and fourth between you and Outhouse, you're kind of making his point, aren't you? If you reject the academic research that I'm presenting because you don't like it, then you are against academia and knowledge, aren't you? You can easily combat that by submitting a rebuttal, but until you do that, we can only assume that you don't legitimately have one... thus, your arguments thus far amount to simply refusing academia... It's very simple.



By documents, I must assume that you are talking about papyrus or paper or something similar, since I have quite obviously shown you "documents" which pre-date the 5,000 BCE timeline that you've proposed. Human symbolically engraving turtle shells are "documents", are they not? I've also admitted that the definition of documents that I believe you are using do not exist prior to 3100 BCE because that's the first evidence that we have of papyrus being used.

Are you going to claim that humans never wrote anything down until the Egyptians invented papyrus?



Turtle shells with writing on them, clay tablets with writing on them, and paleoglyphs are not mythological - they are only a field trip away...

I may not have always succeeded in doing so, but I've made every effort to be civil, and more so, respectful. Calling my Savior, Lord and Master a zombie is not helping your cause.

You are only asking rhetorical questions, unless I misunderstand your viewpoint, in this last post of yours, so Jesus will reveal truth to you. I suggest, no, I beg of you, humbly, with all respect, choose the timing of when you will have truth revealed to you with care.