God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

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...


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...



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.



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.



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...


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.



Are you bowing out without having given any independent corroborating evidence?

I offered you the last word but you're making it questions so...

1. The article was posted at a page inside the website of Department of Computer Science at the University of Chapel Hill, not CreationScience.org.

2. I'm personally disgusted when people knock the source of ANY scientific discourse rather than its substance. The more so since, those creationist websites you clearly hate (yes, hate) ALWAYS present OPPOSING points of view alongside their own, something rarely seen in mainline and skeptic sources.

3. There are reasonable answers to all your "questions" except for the inane:

"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..."

I'm not even sure how to answer that one. Are you expecting to find a printed Atlas made in Photoshop in the Bible? Really? And what clues did you find in the Bible that they thought the world was "small," whatever the relative term "small" means? I can tell easily where you are cutting and pasting ideas and where you are being original. The original content is... weird.

Maybe a better example would be addressing "We would also expect all appropriate stratigraphical layers to share at least some type of common water event. And yet it's not there..."

Go look up what percentage of all known fossils are MARINE fossils or water-based life fossils. The answer is WHOLLY consistent with a global Flood event.

PS. Your syllogism is rude and ill-founded. How dare you stoop to questioning my "theological necessity" for proving the Flood? Just deal with the facts and stay out of my metaphysics, please, it's excessively patronizing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

PS. I'm sure, Jonathan, you are a very bright and learned person, and likely a super-nice guy in person. We'd likely be friends and if we met, the first beers would be on me. So don't take my remarks too personally. We BOTH have big axes to grind. But mine was made in Beleriand long ago by the fathers of the dwarves and is pretty cool!

PPS. Sure, I have reasons internal for defending the Bible and the Flood. But use the hypothesis method like a scientist. I live in a world where all the things you're saying are accepted as, well, Bible and canon. But take some time this coming week to pretend the Bible and Flood are true, and then walk through the resultant hypotheses.

PPPS. This will require reading the Bible again, some. (And it would imply praying to the God of the Bible to show you, to help you, but that is a lot to ask). You keep assaulting straw men that are not in the text although some of the time you're on target...

 

[Looncall]

Typical skeptic's ad hom--take a position paper with thousands of words and dozens of citations and formulae then write one sentence about it without addressing any of the science, theory, implications, or even speculations. If the paper is so wrong, shred it apart with facts, not innuendo. I was asked to provide some ideas and I did.

I expected no less from this group! But no more, either.

Your creationist author does give any numerical estimates of the magnitudes of the effects he claims. One cannot assess his work without these. How do we know that he is not referencing minor effects that are insignificant? This is a propaganda piece.

 

[jonathan180iq]

1. The article was posted at a page inside the website of Department of Computer Science at the University of Chapel Hill, not CreationScience.org.

This is your original link:
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Scroll to the bottom and you'll see another link back to the Home Page:

Doing so takes you to this page, which provides a link to an updated homepage which is:

Note that the red lines are my edit for emphasis.

The source location for this little article is CreationScience.org... It is not at all part of the CS department of UNC.

The author doesn't even name himself, unless you follow his links back to the home page. He is David Plaisted, a Computer Science professor at UNC. His homepage makes specific note that these are opinion pieces and not representative of UNC. They aren't even academic in nature. David Plaisted is, most importantly, not an expert in radiometric dating and an admitted Creationist.

2. I'm personally disgusted when people knock the source of ANY scientific discourse rather than its substance. The more so since, those creationist websites you clearly hate (yes, hate) ALWAYS present OPPOSING points of view alongside their own, something rarely seen in mainline and skeptic sources.

The very nature of science requires that people pick apart each other's work. When something doesn't jive, it's scientists who call each other out on it.
There are known problems with these methods, and those known are applied when doing research. There are overlapping methods, and those are used to validate the other methods. Outliers are rejected and cohesive consensus is attained before dates are put on structures, sites, relics, or anything else. It's not just some mishmash of googled numbers that make history what it is.

There are plenty of academic-level charges levied against scientists by their fellow peers. These handful of creationist websites that exist don't even begin to scratch the surface. They just find one or two odd looking inconsistencies, apply a little flawed logic or ignorance, and then think they've discredited science as a whole... It would be funny it wasn't so rampant.

3. There are reasonable answers to all your "questions" except for the inane:

"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..."

I'm not even sure how to answer that one. Are you expecting to find a printed Atlas made in Photoshop in the Bible? Really? And what clues did you find in the Bible that they thought the world was "small," whatever the relative term "small" means? I can tell easily where you are cutting and pasting ideas and where you are being original. The original content is... weird.

Find where I've pagarized anyone. I type these responses to you sitting at a desk. I'll occasionally double check my dates or cite something if needed, but this all an original production.
And no. I don't need documentary evidence (or a photoshopped map in the Bible) that the scribes who wrote the oldest parts of the Pentateuch had no idea how big the Earth was. The fact that a small community of faithful Hebrews were overly concerned with what kind of food pleases or displeases Yahweh is evidence enough. The fact that no contemporary civilization had any clue what existed beyond the Straights of Gibraltar tells me everything I need to know.

The original Biblical scribes had not even an inkling of an idea about the scale of the world.
If you contest that, then please provide any semblance of support for the idea that ancient peoples knew that the American Continents existed.

When you read your ancient Hebrew, and put their historical context into perspective, you should not assume that their understanding of "the whole world" is the same as your modern understanding of the whole world.

Maybe a better example would be addressing "We would also expect all appropriate stratigraphical layers to share at least some type of common water event. And yet it's not there..."

Go look up what percentage of all known fossils are MARINE fossils or water-based life fossils. The answer is WHOLLY consistent with a global Flood event.

It would be wholly consistent with Flood mythology if those layers were shared. That's the whole point of using the word "shared". It may even work if they were at least contiguous at point, but they're not.

A global flood would leave a global layer. There is no global layer - let alone one that was laid down just a few thousand years ago.

Of the enormous amounts of marine fossils that exist, and the massive areas that they once enveloped, the layers are simply not consistent with your Biblical narrative, nor are they shared. There were ancient seas covering the area where my house is located. A little bit of ignorance and some imagination would let me believe that those marine fossils came from Noah's flood - but that doesn't make it so. Just a little bit of research and even doing some personal field work tells me that the maps located at the United States Geological Survey website are accurate, and that my backyard was basically once the ancient shoreline of a vast-but-shallow sea sometime before the Grenville Orogeny.

USGS National Geologic Map Database
Spend some time on this website, please.

I can physically go outside right now and point to you where this shoreline met the small mountains behind me. With just a little bit of gumption, you can inform yourself on the geologic history of your homeplace as well. There is nothing in this data or study that is implicitly atheistic, yet it does have some serious implications regarding the literal reading of Genesis. Those problems between the true narrative arise from the fact that a literalist interpretation of Genesis is flawed. There is nothing atheistic about geologic facts. Facts are simply facts. You cannot make them any less accurate just because you prefer to believe in a mythological flood.

PS. Your syllogism is rude and ill-founded. How dare you stoop to questioning my "theological necessity" for proving the Flood? Just deal with the facts and stay out of my metaphysics, please, it's excessively patronizing.

Don't be offended. I'm simply making a point.
You have to recognize your bias before you'll be able to address it.

It would be unwise to assume that I know nothing of the Bible, or creationist arguments, or that I wasn't once an apologist myself.

 

[outhouse]

The year-long, global Flood in the days of Noah was the greatest sedimentary and tectonic event in the history of our planet since creation

Then why does this event have no evidence at all? maybe because its factual mythology?


And only the fanatical wont face the truth.

 

[outhouse]

I expected no less from this group! But no more, either.

Must be hard facing people who do not refuse academia and credible knowledge.

It sso much fun following people who just make up this stuff as they go, in light of NO EVIDENCE.

 

[outhouse]

The year-long, global Flood in the days of Noah

Is well known flood mythology plagiarized from previous Mesopotamian flood mythology from a real regional river flood.

Its not even up for debate.



Thank you for providing examples of the dangers of severe fundamentalism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Quote:
The year-long, global Flood in the days of Noah was the greatest sedimentary and tectonic event in the history of our planet since creation (see Genesis 6-9). One of the primary physical causes of this great judgment was the “fountains of the great deep,” all of which were “broken up” on a single day (Genesis 7:11). The verb for “broken up” (Hebrew baqa) means to split or cleave and indicates the faulting process (Numbers 16:31; Psalm 78:15; Isaiah 48:21; Micah 1:4; Zechariah 14:4). The enormous upheaval (probably associated with faulting of seafloor springs) unleashed a year-long global flood. God’s purpose was to begin the human race again from the family of Noah.

So the word "baqa" means to shake? Earth was shaking because it was broken up?

 

[jonathan180iq]

PS. I'm sure, Jonathan, you are a very bright and learned person, and likely a super-nice guy in person. We'd likely be friends and if we met, the first beers would be on me. So don't take my remarks too personally. We BOTH have big axes to grind. But mine was made in Beleriand long ago by the fathers of the dwarves and is pretty cool!

I don't take this personally. You shouldn't either.
When I ask these questions, whether you like them or not, I am legitimately asking how you reconcile the flaw within your reasoning with what is known about the world.
I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm asking you how you can honestly intellectually mesh an obvious inaccuracy with more accurate information.

If you're basing your assertions and interpretations of scripture, and even possibly your personal faith, on seriously flawed creationist website musings, you should be thanking me for pointing out the problem - not getting offended. I may be an atheist, but I have no problem with your faith. It's when you start presenting your interpretation of this particular faith as scientific fact that I get miffed. I have a serious problem with people presenting their guesses as if they were factually correct. I imagine you would have a serious problem with someone misquoting the Bible and pretending it said something about Ancient Aliens or whatever. Attempting to alter substantial historical fact to fit your parabolic worldview is no different.

PPS. Sure, I have reasons internal for defending the Bible and the Flood. But use the hypothesis method like a scientist. I live in a world where all the things you're saying are accepted as, well, Bible and canon. But take some time this coming week to pretend the Bible and Flood are true, and then walk through the resultant hypotheses.

Like I said, it's not personal. I'm simply pointing out your bias to you so you can address it.
I do this because I have made similar mistakes myself in the past and they logical flaws that you are engaging in are so easy to recognize once you've been down that road. It is a road that you cannot continue on if you wish to maintain any kind of intellectual integrity.

Your current theology requires your defense of an indefensible position.
I assure you as someone with knowledge and experience that your interpretation is flawed - not the science.

PPPS. This will require reading the Bible again, some. (And it would imply praying to the God of the Bible to show you, to help you, but that is a lot to ask). You keep assaulting straw men that are not in the text although some of the time you're on target...

I know the Bible quite well.
You have to learn context of the writings outside of your modern understandings interpretations.
It's a violent internal struggle at first - but your faith will deepen because of it and you will hold more credibility when you speak about these things in the future.

Hardline creationists are very poorly educated in their faith, to put it bluntly. They may be incredibly sincere, but their sincerity doesn't make them right.
They do more damage to their cause than their egos let them realize. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is well known flood mythology plagiarized from previous Mesopotamian flood mythology from a real regional river flood.

This is it... There's just no two ways about it.

There were several regional floods, some very devastating to the surrounding peoples, and those floods lead to a whole smattering of flood mythologies, including the one found in Genesis.

 

[outhouse]

They aren't even academic in nature. David Plaisted is, most importantly, not an expert in radiometric dating and an admitted Creationist.

Exactly.

Funny how some creationist throw honesty out the window in desperation.

I guess integrity means nothing to them when guided by blind faith.

 

[outhouse]

Your current theology requires your defense of an indefensible position.

They all run from evidence, because if they used the same criticism against their own claims as they apply them to science, they would be seen as obvious dishonest hypocrites.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All,

Thanks for your many thoughtful comments. I apologize for being away on a missions trip overseas and then I came home to have to travel to a funeral. I definitely hear what you're saying in these comments, however, I find in my researches that many geologic features can be explained by post-Flood recessionary periods of both water and what the water carried/dislodged, an ice age as I mentioned, etc.

I do not find evidence of these post-Flood events in the Bible, but where the early post-Flood people would have lived, near the equator and then dispersing, as well as being quite busy rebuilding civilization, there are no remarks about an ice age that never extended to where Noah's early descendants were, etc.

There are, of course, some strong indicators in the fossil record, the record of human documents, the lineage of human language families, etc. that also point to the Flood IMHO. You are entitled to your opinions, further, I don't expect people who disbelieve in Jesus Christ to believe in anything beyond their rationalist views, e.g. a virgin birth. It would be possible for a virgin birth to occur but would require a being able to manipulate matter and energy. Man is able to harness many properties of matter and energy.

Thanks.

 

[David M]

All,

Thanks for your many thoughtful comments. I apologize for being away on a missions trip overseas and then I came home to have to travel to a funeral. I definitely hear what you're saying in these comments, however, I find in my researches that many geologic features can be explained by post-Flood recessionary periods of both water and what the water carried/dislodged, an ice age as I mentioned, etc.

No, there aren't. If you looked at honest sources that don't lie about the facts you would see that there are a multitude of features that could not exist in there had been a flood.There is a very good reason why devout Christians who went looking for evidence for the Noachian flood and a young earth ended up rejecting the concept, which occurred about 2 centuries ago. In the time since then any honest geologist will confirm that there was no global flood in the period that humans have existed.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Please, just let this thread die.

 

[jonathan180iq]

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, there aren't. If you looked at honest sources that don't lie about the facts you would see that there are a multitude of features that could not exist in there had been a flood.There is a very good reason why devout Christians who went looking for evidence for the Noachian flood and a young earth ended up rejecting the concept, which occurred about 2 centuries ago. In the time since then any honest geologist will confirm that there was no global flood in the period that humans have existed.

Again, creationists and uniformitarians are looking at the same data with different interpretations. This sort of thing happens in many areas of life. Time will tell.

 

[jonathan180iq]

 

[Looncall]

Again, creationists and uniformitarians are looking at the same data with different interpretations. This sort of thing happens in many areas of life. Time will tell.

Time has already told. Supporting the flood myth in the face of so much contrary evidence is clearly perverse.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't see how posting a comic strip making and ad hom is helping the discourse. Most creationist websites and magazines, not only show the facts but present how BOTH sides view the data, something we rarely find in Scientific American or etc. You are posting a canard here.