You really don't read my posts. Dating Barnenez to 5,000 or five billion or five quintillion years old is based on non-documentary methods. Capiche?
No. Unfortunately that's not capiche-worthy.
The methods used to date essentially everything in antiquity are testable and repeatable. The concluding numbers for dates on this sites, and their respective artifacts, are not merely accepted because they gel with a god-less worldview. They are accepted because they cannot adequately be refuted. If you have a problem with a particular sample or a particular method, you can independently test that thing which you have a problem with and submit your contradictory findings to a peer reviewed journal. If you, or any other Creationist in the world, want to discredit a dating method, all you have to do is present your evidence and conclusions into the academic world and present a differing (more accurate) dating method.
There is not a sign on the door of every archaeological dig site stating when it was built - that much you have right...
You keep posting links to places ALL dated using non-documentary methods as proof that radiometric dating is "real"
False.
I keep providing you with sites dated using traditional radiometric methods to show you what the factual human timeline looks like. If you want to counter that timeline, all you have to do is present some evidence out of those sites which does not corroborate with the dates provided. Find me metal tool in a neolithic layer. Find me jurassic animal bones along side modern animal bones in refuse pit from the bronze age. Provide geological evidence that the entire site was once underwater... You can argue for a global flood when you can provide evidence for that flood. Until you can do that, don't be surprised when people take you less seriously than the Ancient Alien proponents...
All you've "accomplished" is to say over and again across a dozen posts that the Bible cannot be true because radiometric dating invalidates it.
I said long ago that there is lots of good history preserved in the Bible. There are plenty of facts contained in that old book.
As a matter of fact, there are dozens of good Christian archaeologists that I know of who use radiometric dating to
validate their sites - and thus validate those parts of the Bible that are factual...
What would you say to those men and women? Is their radiometric data inaccurate because it's part of the same branch of science that invalidates mythology?
Noah's flood has no such substantiating evidence, radiometric, geologic or otherwise. That's a very serious problem to someone who claims that not only did Noah's flood factually happen, but who says that it happened in the year 3,750 BCE (or 5,000 BP)
It is simply not part of that factual narrative that can be found in your scriptures.
If I'm wrong, please show me some evidence to support the argument.
Perhaps you might prepare a response to an objection such as this one:
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
First, do you remember how I said numerous times that there are
known limitations to each and every method of radiometric dating? Or how I said that professionals in the field know what shortcomings they face with different materials or methods? If you do, then you also know that some guy harping about those known limitations does not in any way discredit the process or science of radiometric dating, right?
And secondly, is this linked article the kind of higher education that you have been touting in your previous posts?
Is this the kind of science that your kids are getting into, for example?
An article from CreationScience.org, really?
A Creation Perspective
An organization who says this:
"The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes. This theory has been very well developed, and has considerable intellectual appeal. However, for one who interprets the Christian Bible literally, there are apparent contradictions between evolution and the account in Genesis. This page shows how it is possible to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with a surprising amount of the scientific evidence. We do not mean to criticize those who support the theory of evolution, but for one who is willing to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, we believe that a creation theory is an acceptable alternative."
Note that the very purpose of this website is to help people who don't know much about science reconcile their faith with a few smatterings of scientific wording...
And all from a contributing author who writes things like this:
Creation: A Better Science
There is a huge problem with your line of reasoning and argument just in a general open forum. Imagine how well your argument would go over in an academic setting.
I never said "the Bible is true because Jesus". I've said we can verify Bible facts and figures by looking at external sources. Do you understand "verifying hypotheses"? Do you understand "independent corroboration"? Do you understand I myself was a skeptic and did not take, and STILL don't take everything in the Bible at face value but look at source languages, historical context and independent source verification?
Yes, we can verify some parts of the Bible by looking at external sources. We can verify the hypothesis that some parts of the Bible are accurate by finding corroborating evidence or supporting facts. We can do this in our own research and we can be further validated by others doing independent studies of the same kind. All of this data, if it's accurate and can stand up to scrutiny, will then become part of a highly substantiated narrative telling the most accurate version of History that we can achieve. This is precisely how education works.
So I have a follow-up question for you - Do you understand "Verifying hypotheses"? Do you understand "Independent corroboration"?
If you did, then you would not vaguely attempt to discredit Geology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, Chemistry, Biology, or just general education as you do in your extreme bias for this supposed global flood or 3,750 BCE. You would not try and replace thousands of studies in these respective fields with your own personal faith and mythology.
So, again, if you want to be direct, please show me your supporting evidence. Please show me some independently corroborating studies which suggest that geology is wrong and that a worldwide, destructive flood occurred, conveniently, at the same time as the Hebrew Calendar...
In the case of the Flood, we would expect most of prehistoric society to be washed away if the Flood was global. And so it was.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "prehistoric society" was washed away... But I'll still play this game.
If it happened as you say, then:
- We would also expect flooding deposits to be left in the strata. And yet they're not there...
- We would also expect all appropriate stratigraphical layers to share at least some type of common water event. And yet it's not there...
- We would also expect global social and cultural progress to cease and start over, or at least begin from a common starting point. And yet that's not what happened...
- We would also expect the remains of non-indigenous animals to be found all over the planet (like Kangaroos in Afghanistan, for example). And yet there are none...
- We would also expect to find some evidence that Semitic people living 3,000 years ago had any clue at all how big the Earth was. (Since this was a global event) Yet there is none...
We would expect all kinds of other things that simply aren't evidenced at all. So is it possible that you're just reading this mythology incorrectly, or that everything we know about science and history is wrong? Which is more likely?
So let me ask again
Why do you argue for this flood being factual, If not solely for your personal theological necessity?
Your faith requires that this flood be factual, because the alternative presents some serious problems to your theology.
If you admit that your arguments for the flood are based on a necessary bias, I will completely let it go.
But if you continue to argue against all known academic understandings, I have no other option than to respond to all of the failures in your reasoning.
You can have the last word on this subject. Thanks.
Are you bowing out without having given any independent corroborating evidence?
