Talk:Great Flood

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trajsmith (Talk | contribs) at 17:48, 24 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

General Discussion

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.Palmd001 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. DunsScotus 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are not Christians? Dpbsmith 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BornAgainBrit (talk)

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. Karajou 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

...was the last great event shared by mankind. This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.Palmd001 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. DunsScotus 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? Karajou 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?Palmd001 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. Karajou 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Barnstar for Karajou

Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. DunsScotus 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

'Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'

This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. Karajou 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Real evidence or made up stuff? Tmtoulouse 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! Karajou 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? Tsumetai 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His Modest proposal about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. Tmtoulouse 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? Karajou 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. Nematocyte 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. Tmtoulouse 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. Karajou 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What are you talking about? Tmtoulouse 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. Nematocyte 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. Tsumetai 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. Tmtoulouse 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. Nematocyte 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. Karajou 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. Karajou 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. Nematocyte 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Some examples. Tsumetai 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, read through this paper here. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. Tmtoulouse 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. Karajou 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
the schwerpunkt of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. DunsScotus 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
k. Tmtoulouse 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. Karajou 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. DunsScotus 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to exactly the same time...

Precisely correct. Tsumetai 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit


On Kant

Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....Tmtoulouse 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. Karajou 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. Tmtoulouse 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. Karajou 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. Tmtoulouse 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! Karajou 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. Tmtoulouse 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You Kant critique pure reason. --Mtur 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. DunsScotus 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. Tmtoulouse 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). DunsScotus 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! Tmtoulouse 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

On Truth

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. DunsScotus 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Black Sea flood?

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the Black Sea food theory? This is geological evidence that there was a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --Mtur 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. Karajou 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Here's the Greek flood story [1] for writing that bit. --Mtur 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories Karajou 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --Mtur 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. Karajou 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Fossilization process

I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? Karajou 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

Palmd001 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. Karajou 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Something a very quick Google search turned up:
The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?
I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --Sid 3050 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
This is apparently based on this report. --Sid 3050 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. Karajou 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.
No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. Tsumetai 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. Karajou 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. Tsumetai 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there was something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

Philip J. Rayment 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

What? How does an explanation of why C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? Tsumetai 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
That was not an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the time since death, it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. Philip J. Rayment 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.Palmd001 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
  • Karajou mentioned that a living mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
  • Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on dead material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
  • I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it can be used on living material, but should give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) does demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
Is that clearer now?
Philip J. Rayment 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".Palmd001 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is not they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). Philip J. Rayment 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. Palmd001 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.Palmd001 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. Karajou 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --Sid 3050 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. Philip J. Rayment 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

This article will be replaced

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to replace the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may not be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on Flood Geology, so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

Philip J. Rayment 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. Karajou 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Done

Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or the version it replaced before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a Flood Geology article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts are not meant to be comprehensive. Many more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it...but

Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:

  • Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
  • I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.

And the pic. I want the pic! Karajou 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:

  • It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
  • Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
  • It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.

Karajou 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I expected that the picture would go back. The only objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood stories, not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
Philip J. Rayment 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. Karajou 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
Philip J. Rayment 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. Karajou 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

3000 BC?

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --M 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. Tsumetai 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.Saved 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. DunsScotus 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
How can a date often be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. MatteeNeutra 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[2]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date estimates can be so problematic. [[3]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have disappeared, it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. DunsScotus 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Answers in Creation is an OEC site. Tsumetai 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."[1].
Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? MatteeNeutra 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --M 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way dendrochronology can be part of the current article? --Ed Poor 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There are claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

M wrote: The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

Tsumetai wrote: Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

Philip J. Rayment 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P
There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' Tsumetai 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
Philip J. Rayment 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it's a measurement based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.
Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? Tsumetai 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is not a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an estimate based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there are items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are measured by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an estimate based partly on an extrapolation and partly on some unknown C14 test.
I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
Philip J. Rayment 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. Here is a link(scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.Muchodelcrazy 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. Here is just such a refutation.
Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.Muchodelcrazy 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I believe that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it certain that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical "scientists" say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What are you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs on faith, which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-AmesGyo! 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is not settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [4][5]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. Muchodelcrazy 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean, "Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to many anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. Philip J. Rayment 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit
Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. Philip J. Rayment 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Pando

(Continuation of previous section)

Actually, (and this is a major surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty thousand. Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."

There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? Philip J. Rayment 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of Pando off into a new one?--M 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? Philip J. Rayment 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself is eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--M 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Just Curious - how many were killed?

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood?
  1. http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm