Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not being consistent. Didn't you post about the Ark being found in the "mountains of Ararat"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Localized Flood
- Thread starter IsaiahX
- Start date
There is absolutely no evidence that a flood covered all of Mesopotamia.
As I said I do not trust Biblical chronology concerning the flood. The flood was regional and did not wipe out the population any further than the Tigris Euphrates Valley. I go by the archaeology, geology and geomorphology evidence first concerning the possible dates and area covered by a flood. Second I go by the Sumerian cuneiform tablets relating to the possible dates for a flood story they recorded.
There is no reference that I know of that provides evidence that the flood covered ALL of Mesopotamia.
Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth
There is no evidence that the Ark was found on Mount Ararat.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oops, my bad. You said mountains of Iran. That would still make it a worldwide flood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know. I was going by one of @Muffled 's earlier posts. He said "mountains of Iran" . So a small error on my part. Of course to get an Ark in any mountains it would take a worldwide flood. Water tends to resist piling up in one location.
No evidence there either for the Ark nor the flood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know. Strangely enough we only find evidence for floods in river valley's and flood plains. It is almost as if Noah's flood never happened.
What if I don’t believe you? Is there any way to confirm your claims?
By what I know about radiometric dating, they are not reliable. Old age results can be because the systems are calibrated to give them to support evolution theory and old earth. If there would be honest person who gets too young ages, the "results are wrong", because don't fit to evolution theory. It is actually just one gigantic circular reasoning that is needed to maintain the modern mother earth cult.
That is not true. Bible doesn’t say earth is flat. Bible tells earth means dry land and it has mountains. How could surface that has mountain(s) be called flat?
Reason is that we don’t have the knowledge. We have just belief about their ages. But if I am wrong, please show how to confirm the age, show the proof it is correct. I think I don’t have in this the burden of prove, because I just tell something doesn’t exist. And as atheists have shown, person who says something doesn’t exist, has no burden of proof. Or have they?
So you do think that the Earth (and plants on it!) existed before the Sun?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have not read it then. It only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. Do you remember when Jesus and Satan went to the top of a high mountain and saw all of the Earth? That can only be done on a flat Earth, and that is only one example.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you don't have the knowledge. Others do. You would have to be willing to learn and I don't know if I have the time.Reason is that we don’t have the knowledge. We have just belief about their ages. But if I am wrong, please show how to confirm the age, show the proof it is correct. I think I don’t have in this the burden of prove, because I just tell something doesn’t exist. And as atheists have shown, person who says something doesn’t exist, has no burden of proof. Or have they?
Can you be honest? You will probably find it to be quite difficult. We would need to start with the basics since your science education appears to be woefully incomplete. That is not your fault, that is the fault of others. Hopefully you are an adult now so that you can take control of your education.
Let's start with the scientific method. This is a method for solving problems and answering questions. Here is a simplified illustration of the process:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Without proper knowledge you are in no place to claim that radiometric dating is not reliable. I can tell by your posts that you have been using sources that lied to you. There is a way to check to see if the people that you have been listening to are honest. Go to the original sources and see if they have honestly represented the process or not.
How does Wooley explain the lack of evidence for this event? How does he explain all the evidence of human, animal and plant life happily existing, uninterrupted, right through this period?
Absolutely! Just do the research.
Radiometric dating is reliable. It's tested against other dating methods all the time. They agree.
No. If results are unexpected they may retest, but if they don't find methodological answers they accept the results. Scientists accept the evidence and the conclusions it leads to. If they upset a previous belief, they discard that belief.
Science isn't like religion. It has no agenda, and it's not looking to confirm previous beliefs. If anything, science attempts to disprove its beliefs. This is part of its basic methodology.
No, you're mistaking it for religion again. Science isn't a cult, it has no agenda, and all beliefs are provisionary. Science is always looking at evidence, both confirmatory and negative. it goes wherever the evidence leads. It abhors "faith."
Science is the opposite of religion.
You are wrong. There is good reason to accept scientific dates, but any but the most superficial mention of all the different dating methods and their supports would take volumes.
This is something you should have learned in school. RF is too small a platform for science teaching. Maybe you could try Khan academy or some other online educational site.
If you make a claim, like a young earth, a worldwide flood or magic poofing, yes, you have a burden of proof. Conversely, if science claims a rock is ten million years old, it has a burden.I think I don’t have in this the burden of prove, because I just tell something doesn’t exist. And as atheists have shown, person who says something doesn’t exist, has no burden of proof. Or have they?
Now, science doesn't generally make positive claims until it already has some evidence, and a claim, once made, is generally subject to intense investigation from many sources. Science actively tries to disprove it.
Religion, it seems to me, just points to a book and accepts what's written on faith. It doesn't actively investigate it, and it dismisses any other religious scriptures. It expends most of it's energy criticizing contradictory evidence, apparently on the assumption that if they can find fault with any of it, their religious belief must, by default, be correct.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I used to collect this anti-evolutionary stuff from my students and neighbors, and what was so appalling is how the authors would so often misrepresent or make up "evidence". It was done so often that it simply had to be intentional, and it all too often was so blatantly illogical that even a high school student who was at least reasonably good in biology would be able to counter much of it.
One example pops into mind, and that is that a living mollusk was supposedly C-14 dated and found to be thousands of years old. The fallacy there is that we cannot use C-14 testing on aquatic organisms because the amount of radioactive carbon absorbed is less than what's found in land organisms.
So, with some, apparently lying in the name of "God" is apparently all fine & dandy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem with ocean based life is due to what is called "the reservoir effect". Sea water can go through long cycles of flow and if one is an area of upwelling, a place where water from the bottom of the seas are driven to the surface, the water may be very old. Any dissolved CO2 will have been underwater a long time and give anything that incorporates it into its system a false old date. That and carbon that is recycled off of the sea bed can give ocean life very high carbon dates. There have been scholarly articles on that. A warning to be very careful when using this technique for ocean based life because it can give false dates. Land based plants are all but immune from this. And organisms that eat plants or other organisms that eat plant life are not subject to this. But I would be willing to bet that many Aleuts and other Arctic people may have been affected by the reservoir affect a bit due to eating sea life that is affected in that way.
There are times that one has to be careful in the application of almost any tool. That does not mean that the tool does not work when used properly.
Over 150 years of modern academic geology is how I confirm the knowledge of the age and nature of the deposition of the rocks and strata involved.
By what you know . . . ?!?!?! What is your education and experience in science and geology that qualifies you to make the above assertions?.
Your making judgments based on the ignorance of the knowledge of science, geology, and archaeology is appalling. Radiometric dating is reliable despite your ignorant assertions, but I do not need radiometric dating alone, because I can just use the stratigraphy of geology to date the layers of the different kinds of rocks. The scientist were dating the strategraphy of the earth as millions of years old long before radiometric dating has been used. You are neglecting the reality that radiometric dating is used widely to confirm events, places and people in Biblical history. As a geologist with over 50 years experience I understand the stratigraphy and radiometric dating, and you apparently lack the basic knowledge of the earth, and rocks and science.
By the way there is no direct relationship of evolution and radiometric dating. The hypothesis proposed by Darwin was not based on radiometric dating, and his predictions have been confirmed by all the research and finds over the past 170 years+.
Last edited:
There are many dating methods besides radiometry. Dating Techniques | Encyclopedia.com
If radiometric techniques were inaccurate, you'd expect specimens measured by several techniques to differ from the radiometric dates. They don't. they're consilient.
If radiometric techniques were inaccurate, you'd expect specimens measured by several techniques to differ from the radiometric dates. They don't. they're consilient.