God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[jonathan180iq]

1. I didn't assert the Flood took place 7,000 years ago--you may want to look up the term "BP" online.

You know what? You're right!
My apologies for giving your idea more credit than it deserves by placing it even further in the past...

Before Present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/ADBCYears01.pdf

carbon-14, carbon-dating - National Geographic Style Manual
"Radiocarbon dates are normally given as years before present (years BP), with 1950 as the base year because after that date testing of nuclear weapons added carbon 14 to the atmosphere. Years BP are not the same as calendar years. For instance, a radiocarbon date of 5,000 years before present (or 5000 BP) is the same as 5,750 years ago or 3750 B.C. When giving dates derived from radiocarbon content, explain whether the dates are given in radiocarbon years or in calendar years and be consistent within one article or book."

5,000 BP is your suggested date for this Biblical flood, if I'm not misrepresenting you...

That means that your actual conversion date would be somewhere around 3,750 BCE, right?

38th century BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's pretty cool how all of the volcanic activity, shaking of the Earth, and the 6 mile high wall of water didn't damage the then present-day structures and artifacts!
It's miraculous, actually, that all of this global destruction and upheaval, which went so far as to make the geologic layers near unreliable and hard to decipher, would not harm the graves at Tell Brak or the tombs in Ireland, or the creation of the earliest Semitic languages...

Please note that 3,750 BCE is roughly the same time period in which Ggantija was being built. It's the oldest free-standing structure in the world and it was home to a fertility Cult... It was built around 3,600 BCE. This would imply, under the supposed Noahic Flood timeline, that within just 150 years of such a cataclysmic event Noah's grandchildren had learned nothing from the global destruction of the world by God and quickly reverted to their pagan ways. Seems like sort of a waste of time, doesn't it?

Ġgantija - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also of note, Gobelki Tepe seems to have been unharmed by the global flood of 3,750 BCE, even though it was constructed sometime between the 10th and 8th millennium BCE, six thousand years before the flood...

Barnenez
Barnenez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Barnenez is another HUGE structure that somehow survived the massive global upheaval of the Biblical flood of 3,750 BCE. It was constructed sometime around 4,800 BCE...

2. I will not argue anymore with you since you only ask rhetorical questions, like "How will you defend this since you have shown us no evidence?" Until you are willing to understand that both the Flood and pre-history began 5,000 BP you will not understand that there is evidence.

You can refuse to debate me, or you could just finally present some evidence...

If there is evdience, then present it. I've been asking you to do this for weeks now. If the evidence exists, why not show the whole world that you're right and that there was a global flood, and that we've all been living under a false premise this whole time?

3. I didn't say, and have never said, and continue to repeat, radiometric dating isn't accurate. It IS accurate and carefully done. And the data is relevant, but interpreted incorrectly. I never said it was a scientific conspiracy, etc.

Fair enough. Conspiracy is a strong word after all.
You just believe that professionals in their respective fields are misinterpreting data because they don't filter it through the Judeo-Christian religious framework.
Would that be more accurate to say?

Scientists reject the authenticity of the Bible and that makes them more susceptible to expressing data incorrectly, right?
You and your fellow Christian Scientists, on the other hand, have the true history of the world laid out for you in an easy to read manual, complete with 600 year old protagonists, which helps you more accurately filter the data gathered by the good-natured but otherwise mislead professionals who interpret their field data incorrectly.

Please stop misrepresenting me, my worldview and my statements. Thanks.

Please note that I am only addressing what little information you have provided me with thus far.

 

[outhouse]

you could just finally present some evidence...

Some people are so busy attacking academia and science hypocritically, moving goal post and NEVER applying the same criticism to their own failed hypothesis.

 

[Looncall]

Baloney. Do you have a conception regarding how items are dated via their approximation to other fossilized items, other states, similar readings, etc.? Are you unaware that other methods rely on the same uniform assumptions as C14 dating?

Please be specific about your doubts about radiometric dating, no more vague wafflings: show us the beef! If you cannot, we will know that your posturings are merely just that.

By the way, I am a professional radiochemist. I will be able to spot inaccuracies.

 

[outhouse]

no more vague wafflings

Then he wont be able to reply at all, will he?

 

[`mud]

I love waffles !!!
But not word salad without olives !
~
'mud

 

[David M]

Baloney. Do you have a conception regarding how items are dated via their approximation to other fossilized items, other states, similar readings, etc.? Are you unaware that other methods rely on the same uniform assumptions as C14 dating?

If you want to claim that solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere changes affect dating techniques such as Ar/Ar dating then you are going to need to provide evidence. Because the only baloney is coming from your evidence-free assertions.

Items dated by radometric techniques are not dated by any approximation with other fossilised items, that is a lie, they are dated by testing the sample itself. Not even C14 dating is "approximated" to fossilised items.

Your post was about radiometric dating, radiometric dating relies on the laws of physics, methods such as Ar/Ar do not rely on the same "assumptions" as C14 dating.

 

[outhouse]

that is a lie

How surprising LOL

 

[Looncall]

If you want to claim that solar radiation/ozone/atmosphere changes affect dating techniques such as Ar/Ar dating then you are going to need to provide evidence. Because the only baloney is coming from your evidence-free assertions.

Items dated by radometric techniques are not dated by any approximation with other fossilised items, that is a lie, they are dated by testing the sample itself. Not even C14 dating is "approximated" to fossilised items.

Your post was about radiometric dating, radiometric dating relies on the laws of physics, methods such as Ar/Ar do not rely on the same "assumptions" as C14 dating.

Very well put!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do not have the education in this area to attack science with such vitrol

1. I think you're trying to spell "vitriol".

2. Look up "vitriol".

3. Replace vitriol with "style, class and tact."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm trying to find where it says Earth was shaken. I just woke up so I'm probably just not clear enough to read well enough, but I don't remember that there was anything about earth shaking in the story when I've read it in the past, and I can't really find it. So can you please point out which verse it's in?


The deep wells of water underground?


uhm... how many volcanoes and how big where they and how big was this ice age and for how long did it last? Was that ice age worldwide as well? And were there more volcanos suddenly active than there's today? How many?

Are you interested in creationism? I can point you to resources to answer these questions and others. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You know what? You're right!
My apologies for giving your idea more credit than it deserves by placing it even further in the past...

Before Present - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/ADBCYears01.pdf

carbon-14, carbon-dating - National Geographic Style Manual
"Radiocarbon dates are normally given as years before present (years BP), with 1950 as the base year because after that date testing of nuclear weapons added carbon 14 to the atmosphere. Years BP are not the same as calendar years. For instance, a radiocarbon date of 5,000 years before present (or 5000 BP) is the same as 5,750 years ago or 3750 B.C. When giving dates derived from radiocarbon content, explain whether the dates are given in radiocarbon years or in calendar years and be consistent within one article or book."

5,000 BP is your suggested date for this Biblical flood, if I'm not misrepresenting you...

That means that your actual conversion date would be somewhere around 3,750 BCE, right?

38th century BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's pretty cool how all of the volcanic activity, shaking of the Earth, and the 6 mile high wall of water didn't damage the then present-day structures and artifacts!
It's miraculous, actually, that all of this global destruction and upheaval, which went so far as to make the geologic layers near unreliable and hard to decipher, would not harm the graves at Tell Brak or the tombs in Ireland, or the creation of the earliest Semitic languages...

Please note that 3,750 BCE is roughly the same time period in which Ggantija was being built. It's the oldest free-standing structure in the world and it was home to a fertility Cult... It was built around 3,600 BCE. This would imply, under the supposed Noahic Flood timeline, that within just 150 years of such a cataclysmic event Noah's grandchildren had learned nothing from the global destruction of the world by God and quickly reverted to their pagan ways. Seems like sort of a waste of time, doesn't it?

Ġgantija - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also of note, Gobelki Tepe seems to have been unharmed by the global flood of 3,750 BCE, even though it was constructed sometime between the 10th and 8th millennium BCE, six thousand years before the flood...

Barnenez
Barnenez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Barnenez is another HUGE structure that somehow survived the massive global upheaval of the Biblical flood of 3,750 BCE. It was constructed sometime around 4,800 BCE...

You can refuse to debate me, or you could just finally present some evidence...

If there is evdience, then present it. I've been asking you to do this for weeks now. If the evidence exists, why not show the whole world that you're right and that there was a global flood, and that we've all been living under a false premise this whole time?



Fair enough. Conspiracy is a strong word after all.
You just believe that professionals in their respective fields are misinterpreting data because they don't filter it through the Judeo-Christian religious framework.
Would that be more accurate to say?

Scientists reject the authenticity of the Bible and that makes them more susceptible to expressing data incorrectly, right?
You and your fellow Christian Scientists, on the other hand, have the true history of the world laid out for you in an easy to read manual, complete with 600 year old protagonists, which helps you more accurately filter the data gathered by the good-natured but otherwise mislead professionals who interpret their field data incorrectly.



Please note that I am only addressing what little information you have provided me with thus far.

Surfing through your hyperbole and rhetoric, we are left with:

1. Gobelki Tepe, Barnenez, etc. are dated via documentary evidence or other evidence? What is the nature of that evidence? I'm kind of surprised that you seem to misunderstand how we can look at documents and geneaologies outside the Bible in history, and conclude (likely) dates for pyramid construction or the bronze age and so on, but that whether Barnenez is 5,000 or 500,000 years old is based on other methods and assumptions.

2.

You just believe that professionals in their respective fields are misinterpreting data because they don't filter it through the Judeo-Christian religious framework. Would that be more accurate to say?

That last would be extraordinarily inaccurate to say, and shows you don't read my posts with any due respect or consideration, even that which we customarily accord others in open debate. At this point, I'd conjecture that you are not deliberately trying to pose straw men arguments or read my mind, but rather are literally blind to truth. What would be more accurate is that I'm asserting that wholly sans religious perspectives (many scientists are Christians and/or Creationists, you know, they aren't all atheists like yourself, by the way) there are assumptions made as to the ancient timelines that color our understanding of radiometric and other dating rubrics. We don't need the Bible to affirm the diligence, training and desire for accuracy of scientists, skeptics or Christians. We do need to wake up and smell the coffee, that radiometric dating is a science in flux and based on assumptions about the ancient world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please be specific about your doubts about radiometric dating, no more vague wafflings: show us the beef! If you cannot, we will know that your posturings are merely just that.

By the way, I am a professional radiochemist. I will be able to spot inaccuracies.

I've already done so. And I do need to apologize for hijacking this thread. It wasn't my intention to shift the goal posts. I will also say I'm a theologian, and spot and knock out Bible inaccuracies claimed by others. I got involved not only to offer Flood evidence but to show where others on this thread were saying things about the Bible's recounting of the Flood that were inaccurate.

 

[Wu Wei]

The only answer I have to the statement "God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!" is... no God didn't.

To much Archeological, Geological, Meteorological, Geographical and General Scientific proof to back that up, and any discussion beyond that, to the contrary, is a complete waste of my time

 

[Looncall]

Surfing through your hyperbole and rhetoric, we are left with:

1. Gobelki Tepe, Barnenez, etc. are dated via documentary evidence or other evidence? What is the nature of that evidence? I'm kind of surprised that you seem to misunderstand how we can look at documents and geneaologies outside the Bible in history, and conclude (likely) dates for pyramid construction or the bronze age and so on, but that whether Barnenez is 5,000 or 500,000 years old is based on other methods and assumptions.

2.

That last would be extraordinarily inaccurate to say, and shows you don't read my posts with any due respect or consideration, even that which we customarily accord others in open debate. At this point, I'd conjecture that you are not deliberately trying to pose straw men arguments or read my mind, but rather are literally blind to truth. What would be more accurate is that I'm asserting that wholly sans religious perspectives (many scientists are Christians and/or Creationists, you know, they aren't all atheists like yourself, by the way) there are assumptions made as to the ancient timelines that color our understanding of radiometric and other dating rubrics. We don't need the Bible to affirm the diligence, training and desire for accuracy of scientists, skeptics or Christians. We do need to wake up and smell the coffee, that radiometric dating is a science in flux and based on assumptions about the ancient world.

Why should documentary evidence be the only kind that is acceptable?

So why do you say radiometric dating is in flux? What are these assumptions you refer to? Please be specific.

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you interested in creationism? I can point you to resources to answer these questions and others. Thanks.

I was a creationist for 30 years. I'm not anymore. Did you intent to avoid answering my questions with this response or ?

I just read Genesis 6-8 quickly, and I can't find the place where it says earth was shaking. Can you please give me chapter and verse, please?

 

[outhouse]

Are you interested in creationism?

Are you interested in imagination, mythology and pseudoscience?

 

[outhouse]

I'm kind of surprised that you seem to misunderstand how we can look at documents and geneaologies outside the Bible in history

Im surprised you look at the bible as a history book when it has been shown to have factual historical errors, and does factually contain mythology

 

[outhouse]

What is the nature of that evidence?

Exactly, you have no clue of what your even debating.

YOU refuse the evidence by credible people with the education you just flat refuse.

 

[outhouse]

We don't need the Bible to affirm the diligence, training and desire for accuracy of scientists

Exactly you don't need education and knowledge because it refuses to follow your mythology.

that radiometric dating is a science in flux and based on assumptions about the ancient world

Factually unsubstantiated rhetoric, that YOU cannot back with credibility.


We do like honesty.

 

[outhouse]

Please be specific.

That's would require honesty