Concerning Creation and the Age of the Earth? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Concerning Creation and the Age of the Earth?
in Religion

By RickeyDRickeyD 555 Pts

Concerning Creation and Age of the Earth.

The Earth is but 6000-yrs old and God the Father commissioned the Son, Jesus Christ, to take elements from the Spiritual World and fashion them into matter that is visible in the created Ream of Time and this is the basic foundation for all of creation that is visible and invisible in Time (Hebrews 11:3). This was done as a result of the attempted coup de taut by God's chief cherub angel, Lucifer, who was extricated from the Kingdom for his sin and that struggle-battle was removed from the Kingdom and placed within the constraints of Time to be dealt with here on Earth between Lucifer and Yeshua-Jesus (Luke 10:18).

If one studies, the Holy Spirit explains and articulates the age of the Earth through the generations of Mary as per the Gospel of Luke which articulates Messiah's genealogy from Jesus to Adam who was created on the 6th-Day of Creation.

C-14 dating is irrelevant as God the Son created a mature Earth and Universe and man's attempts to date via carbon dating/radiometric dating/speed of light are impotent because what man apprehends in Time was created mature as God the Son also created a mature man and woman in The Beginning.

How does the Bible teach 6000-years? https://creation.com/6000-years 



Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenAlofRItroll_locator



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Distant Stars say stop it.
    DeeGnosticChristian
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Is the Earth always 6,000 years old? It was 6,000 years old 5 years ago, when I first heard this claim, and it is 6,000 years old now. Interesting how mathematics works in your guys' world... A million years from now, it will still be 6,000 years old, right?
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenDeeGnosticChristian
  • @MayCaesar ; 6020-years old...thanks.
  • @RickeyD

    Stop it, young earth creationists are like the senile grandfather of flat earthers.

    No one respectable thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old, even most Christians.

    There are just so many problems with it I wouldn't even no where to begin. Light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background, radioactive elements, the whole of geology, astronomy and natural history.

    The evidence for an earth older than 6,000 years is insurmountable. To suggest otherwise is to live in delusion and hatred of reality, something some would describe as spiritual or mental illness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI
    PlaffelvohfenGnosticChristian
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @RickeyD

    Are you sure it is 6020 years old, and not 6019 or 6021 years old? When is the Earth's birthday? Maybe 6020 years and 1 month old? Or 6020 years and 5 months old? Please enlighten me, oh knowledgeable one!
  • DeeDee 2364 Pts
    edited February 5
    ***** If one studies, the Holy Spirit explains and articulates the age of the Earth through

    I think the only “spirit “ involved in your speculations is one that came from a bottle for to believe such one would have to be a drunk or a lunatic. Arguing with young earthers is a waste of time and is the same as arguing with flat earthers 
    PlaffelvohfenGnosticChristian
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    I'm not sure how old the earth is, but man has only been on the earth for about 6000 years.
    By present estimates, Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E.
    That would place a man on the earth approximately 6046 years.

    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIGnosticChristian
  • @Sand

    Hoe do you explain the extinction of the mega fauna in North America? There are cave paintings of these animals which means that early peoples hunted them, but there extinction was much longer ago than 6,000 years, closer to 11,000.

    There are also ancient ruins and temples that are older than that, the oldest dating back 12,000 years. Some scholars have even suggested that we add a 1 to the beginning of our calendar, so the year would be 12,020 instead of 2020.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 830 Pts
    In religion, "Whatever thou believeth is true", That is, if the salesman who is selling you an invisible product … says so.

    "The Earth is 6000 years old" …. Those who believe that must be fans of Mark Twain, but, people who don't understand satire. Mr. Clemens said: "Don't let schooling interfere with your education."  (That included Sunday Schooling ;-)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Sand ;

    One word should do.

    Fossils.

    Unless you think the great deceiver, Stan to you, Yahweh to me, is at play.

    Your bible tells you to put no one above god for any attribute.

    Who do you name as greatest deceiver?

    Regards
    DL

  • SandSand 216 Pts

    The question is how do you determine the age of something outside of carbon dating?
    Carbon dating has not proven reliable.


  • SandSand 216 Pts

    You are right Fossils prove men were here less than 6000 years.

    Evolutionists deceive themselves, but you can cut through the deception with Science.
  • @Sand
    We did not date the extinction of the mega fauna using carbon dating, we know when they went extinct by analysis of Sporormiella fungal spores.
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts


    This article shows they still use Carbon Dating for Sporormiella Fungal Spores.
    I use to think that Carbon dating was not accurate for things over 5000 years, now I find out they're having a lot of problems.


    In my experience science always keeps the door open, just in case of mistakes.

  • @Sand
    The problems associated with the type of carbon obtained from the samples for radiocarbon analysis disappear when the same source is used as a control and the sample is younger than 20,000 years. In this case, the samples meet this criteria and would be accurate.

    Radiocarbon dating in the oldest samples of human artifacts (specifically charcoal and the bones of an extinct horse) suggest that humans first arrived in North America between 15,000 and 16,000 years ago.

    This happens to coincide with the ice age when there was a land bridge between Russia and Alaska known as the Bering straight caused by lower sea levels.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Sand ;

    Yet you offer no science on this issue and run away from answering religious question.

    You are one useless interlocutor. We will not chat much if you maintain your level of incompetence.

    Regards
    DL
  • In order for the age of the earth to be accurate determined C14 would have to reach equilibrium, a state where entropy could be evaluated from an initial point to a current dating standard.

    There is more C14 from the analysis dating 2000 -2020 therefore the earth has not reached equilibrium.

    The current amounts of C14 dictate that age of the earth is young as a researcher named Albert weishoff calculated it would take the earth 3000 years to reach equilibrium at the time of his life.

    Therefore since the earth has more C14 it can not be millions of years old considering equilibrium is measured at 3000 years.
    Happy_Killbot
  • @JesusisGod777888

    THORIUM-URANIUM DATING IS USED FOR ANYTHING OVER 20,000 YEARS OLD NOT CARBON-14

    JesusisGod777888
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    You can't defend what's not real. Evolutions false.

    The half-life of uranium isn't a measure for anything.

    Go reference the public record of Jesus Christs Ressurection I provided with the library of Congress co tell number as you lack knowledge.


    Happy_Killbot
  • @JesusisGod777888 ; What do you know about evolution? Do you have a college education, enough to conclusively say it is false, or are you just making an argument from ignorance?

    Jesus is irrelevant to evolution...

    Also plants!





    If you don't believe in evolution, then you don't believe in selective breeding, because they are the SAME THING! The only difference is one is guided by human hands, the other by the ambivalent and chaotic reality of nature.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    @JesusisGod777888

    Critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating is how we arrived at the conclusion that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates.

    This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

     Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

    Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

    What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

    The calculations don't account for the replacement rates as compared to the decay rates.

    The TL;DR is that the more you have the more will decay, and the less you have the less will decay. These two factors work together to keep the levels relatively constant, only changing based on production rates, which are dependent on changes in the earth's magnetic field.

    Even if we forget about carbon-14, we would still have to contend with other radioisotopes, and heavy long lived elements in particular such as thorium and uranium.

    If the earth was only a few thousand years old, we would expect to find trans-uranic elements in abundance. The lack of plutonium in the earth's crust is strong evidence of an old earth.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    edited February 7
    @Happy_Killbot

    Likewise, if the Earth were truly millions, billions or trillions of years old then we would expect to find that Diamonds contain no radioactive 14C.  According to well established Geological facts in science, Diamonds are created between 100 and 200km below the Earth's surface and require immense amounts of pressure to be created. Diamonds formed 1-3 billion years ago.  But there's an issue there.

    Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.

    The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records.

    I'm in favor of supporting Carbon dating as a proven scientific method, it just so happens that by using it you end up contradicting the idea that the Earth is millions, billions or trillions of years old.  

    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk Actually, no we would expect to find carbon-14 in diamonds for two reasons: The first would be that nitrogen-14 is trapped in the lattice as a natural part of the diamonds formation, and irradiation will cause to turn into carbon-14. The second is that the carbon that formed it will naturally contain some carbon-14 which will not completely decay, remember half life doesn't mean that all the substance goes away, it means that some of the substance will remain (mathematically indefinitely, but in reality it is limited by the number of atoms) 
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2364 Pts
    @Vaulk

    I will give you credit for the piece as usual it's comedy gold you give a link regarding "Dr John" from Creations Ministries , it's hilarious to say the least ....John Baumgardner was working on a Ph.D. in electrical engineering when he discovered the reality of Jesus in a dramatic way through a group Bible study of the Gospel of John. After a four-year tour of duty at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, where he was engaged in gas dynamic laser research, he joined the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ. Observing the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students, Dr Baumgardner began to develop and present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s false claims.
  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    The amount of 14C discovered in diamonds cannot be accounted for.  Ten times the detection limit surpasses nitrogen as an explanation.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • VaulkVaulk 741 Pts
    And @dee I'm sorry I can't see your posts.  I blocked you a while back but I can't remember what for.  I recently had the same issue with @TKDB and I unblocked him because I couldn't remember why I had him muted in the first place...big mistake lol.  I'm going with my gut on this one.
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 2410 Pts
    edited February 8
    @Vaulk Alright, so lets talk about nuclear reactions biology, and geology.

    So the way that carbon-14 is created in the earth's atmosphere is when radiation, typically in the form of high energy cosmic rays and fast neutron radiation interacts with nitrogen-14 in a replacement reaction where a proton is ejected from the nucleus. This causes the atom to decay into carbon-14. Carbon-14 decays naturally over time, nut is continuously replaced in the atmosphere. Because plants and animals can not distinguish between carbon isotopes, they enter the organism at constant rates that will roughly equal the abundance in the atmosphere, and when the organism dies no more carbon is introduced and we can use that time to determine the difference.

    Diamonds did not form from organic materials, nor did they form from atmospheric CO2. Thus the expectation that they should have formed with carbon 14 at replacement levels in the earths atmosphere is just wrong.

    So now diamonds. Nitrogen is the primary impurity in natural diamonds, about 0.1% which is huge. This means that any irradiation will have a possibility to transmute the nitrogen into carbon 14 which could explain the anomalous reading, especially if they are near a neutron source. Now the amount that we are talking about here is very small, close to the instrument error.  This is so small that carbon dating can not be used to date diamonds accurately. In addition diamonds are often found near uranium veins- which occasionally spontaneously go through neutron decay, potentially solving the neutron source problem.

    https://www.gia.edu/gia-news-research-tiny-inclusions-reveal-diamond-age
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts

    I will provide you proof if you can answer this:

    Please give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

  • SandSand 216 Pts

    The question is how do you determine the age of something outside of carbon dating?
    Carbon dating has not proven reliable.



    I use to think that Carbon dating was not accurate for things over 5000 years, now I find out they're having a lot of problems.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180605112057.htm


    So far no one has answered against this articles or addressed it.
  • @Sand Even if carbon dating isn't reliable, you still need to answer other questions regarding radioisotopes, and specifically trans-uranic elements.

    Carbon dating has a max range of only about 50,000 years anyways.

    If the earth is only a few thousand years old, there should be tons of plutonium-244 in nature, with a half-life of 82 million years but there is none suggesting it all decayed away. This is consistent with an old earth.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts

    >>>Even if carbon dating isn't reliable, you still need to answer other questions regarding radioisotopes, and specifically trans-uranic elements.<<<

    I see no problems with radioisotopes or trans-uranic elements.
    I believe the earth has been here for millions of years.
    I believe humans have been here only 6000 years.

    >>>Carbon dating has a max range of only about 50,000 years anyways.<<<

    Not according to the two articles I mentioned and the Nobel Peace Prize winner W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating.
    https://assets.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/libby-lecture.pdf

    >>>If the earth is only a few thousand years old, there should be tons of plutonium-244 in nature, with a half-life of 82 million years but there is none suggesting it all decayed away. This is consistent with an old earth.<<<

    You are probably right about that.

  • @Sand Then you have to explain how humans arrived in North America. The Bering strait land bridge is at earliest 15,000 years old, and seafaring technology will not have been developed until much later.

    We know when the Bering strait would have been exposed from ice core samples and geology.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts

    It's really simple.

    I feel the reason there are issues with carbon dating, is because the earth had a watery canopy.
    The sun was not consistent.
    This greatly slowed the Carbon in materials, that is why scientists think things are 50,000 years old.
    The watery canopy provided an equalizing effect on the earth.
    After the flood, this equalizing effect no longer was there.
    Which caused a pseudo ice age, where the edges of the earth were connected by ice.
    Making it possible for animals and people to travel to different parts of the earth for a few hundred years.
    This pseudo ice age slowly dissipated.
    I also feel that is why it is hard to pinpoint dates on things because massive changes occurred during the flood.

    This is mostly speculation, I have hardly any evidence.
  • @Sand The formation of carbon-14 from nitrogen-14 is due to cosmic rays, not the sun. Specifically it needs neutron irradiation.

    If you have no evidence then we could claim that aliens came down and built a wall only to remove it after humans had come to north America.

    Your theory has numerous holes anyways that would cause the opposite effect anyways, like the fact that H2O (water) is a greenhouse gas and would warm the planet.

    the radioisotopes used for dating fossils would not have been changed due to water exposure if they were already buried.

    The global flood could not have occurred as it is written in the bible. The text itself is just a shameless ripoff of the epic of Gilgamesh. There is simply not enough water on earth to cover the entire planet without some serious changes in the terrain, which we would see in the geological record. The most prominent theory is that the middle east was subject to hurricanes and a seasonal monsoon which inspired the flood story, which was latter sensationalized.
    Dee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    I  will address your concerns soon.

    I must say I am curious about the other dating applications.
    Someone told me that 90% of the dating applications say under 6000 years.
  • DeeDee 2364 Pts
    @Sand

    ***** Someone told me that 90% of the dating applications say under 6000 years

    Why would you take that someone’s word for it ? Have you done independent research on the matter?
  • SandSand 216 Pts

    A lot of reading but nothing substantial. Seemed biased.
  • DeeDee 2364 Pts
    @Sand

    I said it before you’re a pretty smart guy but one thing I cannot comprehend is that you will go down the very same paths regards Evolution and other matters of science with H and others after having the very same conversations with me and others .

    What I wonder is this do you think that there is a big conspiracy theory amongst scientists and people of learning to deceive and deflect people away from the truth? If this is the case for what purpose? 
  • SandSand 216 Pts

    >>>If you have no evidence then we could claim that aliens came down and built a wall only to remove it after humans had come to North America.<<<

    Amazing that you say so because a great many atheist scientists are turning to that very conclusion after many experiments and study.



    >>>Your theory has numerous holes anyways that would cause the opposite effect anyways, like the fact that H2O (water) is a greenhouse gas and would warm the planet.<<<

    Exactly, this canopy I believe stabilized the environment preventing extreme weather and allowing more even distribution of temperatures.
    The expanse would shield out a great amount of the harmful radiation, including cosmic radiation.



    >>>There is simply not enough water on earth to cover the entire planet without some serious changes in the terrain, which we would see in the geological record.<<<

    Right now 70 percent of the earth is water.
    Without the sea caps, the land would be scarce.

    If billions of tons of water fell to the earth and covered all mountains at the time.
    Under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust.
    In time new mountains would thrust upward, old mountains would rise to new heights, shallow sea basins would be deepened, and new shorelines would be established.
    The majority of the water is would centralize in the north and south poles.



    >>>The global flood could not have occurred as it is written in the bible. The text itself is just a shameless ripoff of the epic of Gilgamesh. <<<

    With Gilgamesh, I feel they are writing about the same event, which adds to the credibility of what occurred.
    The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos, and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. They all have concepts in common, God or gods upset, a Vessel for refuge for a few survivors, large or global destruction of life by water, animals, and mankind preserved.

    Carbon-14 can be greatly altered, and now are giving different dates on artifacts.
    "Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE."

    "animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been revised to about 1,350 years old."

    For something that is supposed to be consistent is coming back with different dates is untrustworthy.

    Consider this illustration:
    Supposed that they came up with a new technology called subatomic columnar thin film (SCTF) which allows you to time stamp fingerprints on any object. No matter how many times you wipe or wash the item, you can still see the SCTF. All the cold cases are being solved, people are being arrested left and right.  Then a scientist finds a discrepancy that the time stamp with SCTF is not exactly correct, sometimes it would rank old prints as new and new prints as old. Now you have to develop a new process without the discrepancy and reanalyze everything, all the cold cases. Those people you locked up if they did not confess, you have to release them.

    Carbon 14 has not been consistent, those are a few examples of issues.
    They are having some serious problems with the process, even with the readjustment is coming back with more issues.


  • @Sand
    Amazing that you say so because a great many atheist scientists are turning to that very conclusion after many experiments and study.
    What? If there is evidence of aliens having been on earth that is big news and I would have heard it by now. I think you or someone else just made this up.
    Exactly, this canopy I believe stabilized the environment preventing extreme weather and allowing more even distribution of temperatures.
    The expanse would shield out a great amount of the harmful radiation, including cosmic radiation.
    No, the weather would be more extreme if there were more water vapor in the atmosphere because it would be hotter thus move faster. I can get more specific but the long of the short is that UV light can go through water, infrared can not. It's the same with a lot of materials like CO2 and glass. Visible light and UV goes through easily, but infrared thermal radiation can not, which is why you can't see through windows with a thermal camera.
    Without the sea caps, the land would be scarce.

    If billions of tons of water fell to the earth and covered all mountains at the time.
    Under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust.
    In time new mountains would thrust upward, old mountains would rise to new heights, shallow sea basins would be deepened, and new shorelines would be established.
    The majority of the water is would centralize in the north and south poles.
    Ok, there are a LOT of problems with this:
    • by "Sea caps" I assume you mean the ice trapped at the poles and on cold mountain tops. It is true that there is a lot of water trapped here, however it is insufficient to cover the earth, as the map shows you. Not to mention the amount of water you need to cover the planet increases the higher you go, because there is less land mass to displace. (same as filling the bottom of a cone takes less water than the wide top)
    • Where did this water come from, and where did it go?
    • Under your "watery canopy" theory, the weight would already be there in the atmosphere, because air has weight and adding water vapor to the air adds weigh. Thus atmospheric pressure would be higher, and we would see this in ice core samples.
    • It mountains can form that fast, (they can't) we would see all kinds of crazy tectonic activity today that would essentially make the planet uninhabitable. Not to mention the fact that the exposure of fresh volcanic rocks absorbs lots of CO2, and this would cause further dramatic changes in earth's atmosphere.
    • We have already covered how even this water is insufficient to cover the globe.
    With Gilgamesh, I feel they are writing about the same event, which adds to the credibility of what occurred.
    The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos, and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. They all have concepts in common, God or gods upset, a Vessel for refuge for a few survivors, large or global destruction of life by water, animals, and mankind preserved.
    I'm certainly not arguing that they are talking about different events, and there would have been major flooding inside human lifetimes due to the last ice age ending. This is a real event which is supported by hard science, but it doesn't come close to the global flood described in the bible. There is however another possibility that is often dropped, and it has to do with translation. The Hebrew word "eretz" can mean land, country, and earth. It is possible the bible was mistranslated to make a more radical claim than intended.
    Carbon-14 can be greatly altered, and now are giving different dates on artifacts.
    "Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE."

    "animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been revised to about 1,350 years old."
    You are cherry picking mistakes here. If the science was completely inaccurate, they would never have found the issues. This only applies to a very small number of artifacts that were dated incorrectly.
    consider this illustration:
    Supposed that they came up with a new technology called subatomic columnar thin film (SCTF) which allows you to time stamp fingerprints on any object. No matter how many times you wipe or wash the item, you can still see the SCTF. All the cold cases are being solved, people are being arrested left and right.  Then a scientist finds a discrepancy that the time stamp with SCTF is not exactly correct, sometimes it would rank old prints as new and new prints as old. Now you have to develop a new process without the discrepancy and reanalyze everything, all the cold cases. Those people you locked up if they did not confess, you have to release them.
    No one has ever been convicted on fingerprints alone. Likewise, other methods are used to justify the times given by radiocarbon dating, such as U-series (uranium dating), Electron spin resonance (ESR), and amino acid racemization (AAR) 
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    >>>What? If there is evidence of aliens having been on earth that is big news and I would have heard it by now. I think you or someone else just made this up.<<<

    You are right the Atheists made it up:
    "It could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved, by probably some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose that it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of designer… And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." -Dawkins



    >>>No, the weather would be more extreme if there were more water vapor in the atmosphere because it would be hotter thus move faster. I can get more specific but the long of the short is that UV light can go through water, infrared can not. It's the same with a lot of materials like CO2 and glass. Visible light and UV goes through easily, but infrared thermal radiation can not, which is why you can't see through windows with a thermal camera.<<<

    No, I did not say there was more water vapor in the air, I said there was a watery canopy. Water is like an insulator, just like in your home temperatures are reduced and controlled, so with this watery canopy temperatures will be controlled and reduced. Although UV light can go through thin water, but not thicker water like billions of tons that cover the entire globe would be reflected. A perfect environment for your eyes and skin.

    "Clouds can have a marked impact on the amount of UV that reaches the Earth's surface; generally, thick clouds reflect and absorb more UV than thin cloud cover. UV can pass through thin clouds. However, sides of clouds can also reflect UV and focus solar energy and can increases the amount received at the Earths surface in some situations."




    >>>by "Sea caps" I assume you mean the ice trapped at the poles and on cold mountain tops. It is true that there is a lot of water trapped here, however it is insufficient to cover the earth, as the map shows you. Not to mention the amount of water you need to cover the planet increases the higher you go, because there is less landmass to displace. (same as filling the bottom of a cone takes less water than the wide top)<<<
    Good point, a better name is Icecaps.
    "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."
    How much of the world is 200 feet above sea level?
    That's one big lake.



    >>>Where did this water come from, and where did it go? Under your "watery canopy" theory, the weight would already be there in the atmosphere, because air has weight and adding water vapor to the air adds weight. Thus atmospheric pressure would be higher, and we would see this in ice core samples.<<<

    What would you see? From no ice on the earth to ice on the earth, what would you see in an ice core sample?
    Would it tell you there was a canopy on the earth?
    There are limits to science, you cannot test for everything.

    Forensic Science can be misleading.

    Multiple eye witness testimony is always stronger than forensic science.
    We already mentioned multiple cultures that documented the flood event.



    >>>It mountains can form that fast, (they can't) we would see all kinds of crazy tectonic activity today that would essentially make the planet uninhabitable. Not to mention the fact that the exposure of fresh volcanic rocks absorbs lots of CO2, and this would cause further dramatic changes in earth's atmosphere.<<<

    If you take billions of tons of water and add it to the earth, the tectonic activity will cause existing mountains small or large to gain size.
    CO2 would not be that devastating if the mountains were underwater.



    >>>We have already covered how even this water is insufficient to cover the globe.<<<

    The globe now. But the earth is 70% water, if the earth was more uniform, it would easily cover all the land.



     
    >>>I'm certainly not arguing that they are talking about different events, and there would have been major flooding inside human lifetimes due to the last ice age ending. This is a real event that is supported by hard science, but it doesn't come close to the global flood described in the bible. There is however another possibility that is often dropped, and it has to do with translation. The Hebrew word "eretz" can mean land, country, and earth. It is possible the bible was mistranslated to make a more radical claim than intended.<<<

    Good point, it could be, I am open to that possibility. It was large enough to affect all of Europe, Africa, and Asia.



    >>>You are cherry-picking mistakes here. If the science was completely inaccurate, they would never have found the issues. This only applies to a very small number of artifacts that were dated incorrectly.<<<

    There hundreds of scientific dating methods, all of them give different dates for different things.
    No method has been completely trustworthy.
    They even argue against themselves and can be very misleading.
    No one is saying completely inaccurate.
    If that canopy hindered the carbon-14 it could make things look way older than what they were.
    You have to go on all of the information.



    >>>No one has ever been convicted on fingerprints alone. Likewise, other methods are used to justify the times given by radiocarbon dating, such as U-series (uranium dating), Electron spin resonance (ESR), and amino acid racemization (AAR)<<<

    Nevertheless, my reasoning is strong and can be applied to any dating method.
    This is not CSI, that stuff is very fictitious.
    Which shows how heavy fingerprinting is used to prosecute criminals.

    U-series (uranium dating), Electron spin resonance (ESR), and amino acid racemization (AAR)
    Argue against Carbon dating on many occasions.
    That is the reason why they developed those methods.
    Every dating method has its assumptions.
    Scientific testing can be very misleading.
    Eye witness testimony is still the best answer to "what happen?"

  • @Sand You can't just quote Dawkins out of context and somehow make the logical leap between this and walls creating a land bridge. Dawkins doesn't believe any of that, he is just acknowledging that it is technically possible that aliens did it, but that doesn't solve the problem because then where did they come from? There is also no evidence for it, so i'm not about to become a Scientologist.
    No, I did not say there was more water vapor in the air, I said there was a watery canopy. Water is like an insulator, just like in your home temperatures are reduced and controlled, so with this watery canopy temperatures will be controlled and reduced. Although UV light can go through thin water, but not thicker water like billions of tons that cover the entire globe would be reflected. A perfect environment for your eyes and skin.
    This has even more problems now then before. First off, plant's can not photosynthesize without UV light, which is why there are scarce plants in the deep oceans. Also since water reflects things based on their wavelength, less powerful light would not be able to penetrate, meaning the planet would be very dark. What do you mean by "canopy" if it isn't in the air? You talk about clouds, which are made of water vapor in the air. Where is it exactly? Is it in space? If that is the case then it would evaporate immediately and disperse, unless it was heavy enough to collapse into a sphere. This has all sorts of other problems.
    Good point, a better name is Icecaps.
    "If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."
    How much of the world is 200 feet above sea level?
    That's one big lake.
    The science of sea level is ridiculously complicated, with some 3,000 factors that effect it. For example, the rise in sea level at New York City is much more the average rise global. There are dozens of factors I can't even claim to begin to understand, everything from subterranean features, ocean currents, sea temperatures, the moon's orbit, just so much stuff to consider. Another major prediction is that sea levels around Greenland would actually go down, because the soil would expand like a spring without so much ice weighing it down. Anyways, all of this doesn't solve the problem anyways because it still isn't enough water to make a global flood occur. The epic of Gilgamesh and derivative works had to have been a local legend, not a global flood.
    What would you see? From no ice on the earth to ice on the earth, what would you see in an ice core sample?
    Would it tell you there was a canopy on the earth?
    There are limits to science, you cannot test for everything.
    I have already answered this, your links don't answer the question. You would see higher atmospheric pressures and greater water vapor in the air. The water ice would still be there even with your water canopy theory.
    Multiple eye witness testimony is always stronger than forensic science.
    We already mentioned multiple cultures that documented the flood event.
    We have no eye witness testimony from before man started writing things down. On top of this, hard evidence is always better than witness testimony.
    If you take billions of tons of water and add it to the earth, the tectonic activity will cause existing mountains small or large to gain size.
    CO2 would not be that devastating if the mountains were underwater.
    I already answered this. The weight would already be there in the form of increased air pressure. This wouldn't effect tectonic activity, the way you think it would, this is all just wild speculation.
    The globe now. But the earth is 70% water, if the earth was more uniform, it would easily cover all the land.
    Then how did it get to be not uniform in such a short period of time? The Appalation mountains are almost half a billion years old, they need that kind of time to form by folding over, you can see the folds when you drive along cuts in the hills on the highway. You are trying to tell me this is all fake news. I'm sorry but you are just wrong, this never happened. The global flood story is a myth.
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Appalachian-Mountains/Geology
    Good point, it could be, I am open to that possibility. It was large enough to affect all of Europe, Africa, and Asia.
    Sometimes we see hurricanes like this that effect Africa and the middle east, and there are theories that they would have been more prevalent in the past, but they don't effect all of Asia, Europe and Africa, just the Africa and middle east primarily. However for a ancient story this would have been a trivial issue, since you can only see about 12 NM when at sea anyways due to the curvature of the earth, so to stay that far from land for a month is easy.
    There hundreds of scientific dating methods, all of them give different dates for different things.
    No method has been completely trustworthy.
    They even argue against themselves and can be very misleading.
    No one is saying completely inaccurate.
    If that canopy hindered the carbon-14 it could make things look way older than what they were.
    You have to go on all of the information.
    If there was any indication of a water canopy we would see it in ice cores.
    U-series (uranium dating), Electron spin resonance (ESR), and amino acid racemization (AAR)
    Argue against Carbon dating on many occasions.
    That is the reason why they developed those methods.
    Every dating method has its assumptions.
    Scientific testing can be very misleading.
    Eye witness testimony is still the best answer to "what happen?"
    Every single one of them argues for an old earth and an evolved human race. Eyewitness testimony would not have been available until after the written word was developed, thus it is unreliable for natural history. Eye witness testimony is still considered the least reliable form of evidence, even today.
    https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/trends/home/Monthly-Trends-Articles/2017/The-Trouble-with-Eyewitness-Identification-Testimony-in-Criminal-Cases.aspx
    Besides this, the stories in the bible were not recorded until decades or even centuries after the events, so they were not eyewitness testimony anyways. I have picked a Christian source so you will know it is unbiased.
    http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/how-the-bible-came-to-us

    Ever played the telephone game? That is how accurate the bible is at the least but over very long periods of time. Who knows what was lost or added to these fables, nowadays it is hard to say for sure just how much if any of it is true, like so many other ancient myths. It is just so much more likely that the earth is old, humans evolved, and our stories were mostly made up, and this is what all the evidence supports.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    >>>You can't just quote Dawkins out of context and somehow make the logical leap between this and walls creating a land bridge. Dawkins doesn't believe any of that, he is just acknowledging that it is technically possible that aliens did it, but that doesn't solve the problem because then where did they come from? There is also no evidence for it, so I'm not about to become a Scientologist.<<<

    I didn't quote out of context. He was asked a direct question. And he didn't come out with this answer from his butt, you can tell he placed thought into it. This concept may not fit in his philosophy, but it was obvious that he placed a considerable study into that conclusion, enough to mention his views on television. Although he is mentioning it was technically possible, there was more to what he was revealing. What he is alluding to is there are some conclusions you cannot come to without the presence of intelligence.


    >>>This has even more problems now than before. First off, plant's can not photosynthesize without UV light, which is why there are scarce plants in the deep oceans. Also since water reflects things based on their wavelength, less powerful light would not be able to penetrate, meaning the planet would be very dark. What do you mean by "canopy" if it isn't in the air? You talk about clouds, which are made of water vapor in the air. Where is it exactly? Is it in space? If that is the case then it would evaporate immediately and disperse, unless it was heavy enough to collapse into a sphere. This has all sorts of other problems.<<<

    But not all UV light is needed.
    Not all water blocks light.
    What I mean is an invisible vapor canopy in our upper atmosphere. As cooler vapor nears space, water condenses and begins to haze, though as long as the vapor in the upper atmosphere is kept warm and above the dew point, it could remain invisible.

    But I want you to think about the concept. This stuff is before fictitious writing. Yet it is thought that is millenniums away of common thinking about physics.
    When Moses wrote this information, think about the pervasive thought there was about physics. The chronology and naming of locations, it is millenniums ahead of its time.
    But the concept of a physical aspect that is not apart of physics today and yet how it played a part in the catastrophic event that occurred on the earth.



    image

    Image result for water canopy


    >>>The science of sea level is ridiculously complicated, with some 3,000 factors that affect it. For example, the rise in sea level in New York City is much more the average rise global. There are dozens of factors I can't even claim to begin to understand, everything from subterranean features, ocean currents, sea temperatures, the moon's orbit, just so much stuff to consider. Another major prediction is that sea levels around Greenland would actually go down because the soil would expand like a spring without so much ice weighing it down. Anyways, all of this doesn't solve the problem anyway because it still isn't enough water to make a global flood occur. The epic of Gilgamesh and derivative works had to have been a local legend, not a global flood.<<<

    Nevertheless, Gilgamesh is not the only story out there about a flood. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos, and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. For each of them to mention a flood, a vessel, few survivors lend to the credibility of what occurred. The Bible is the only book that has extensive details regarding the event.


    >>>I have already answered this, your links don't answer the question. You would see higher atmospheric pressures and greater water vapor in the air. The water ice would still be there even with your water canopy theory.<<<

    What I am trying to say is you cannot read a book with fingers.
    You cannot always test for events. Can you test if a tank drove across some land? All the soil samples you take will not show if one did or didn't.
    Trying to read ice core samples to determine if there was a watery canopy is like trying to read a book with fingers.
    I not saying it would not tell you anything. It would make more sense that the event would explain the evidence than the evidence explaining the event.
    The ultimate proof of the question to "what happened?" is an eye witness evidence of events.
    Physical evidence cannot tell you what happened it can only tell you what the results are.


    >>>We have no eye witness testimony from before man started writing things down. On top of this, hard evidence is always better than witness testimony.<<<

    You say "Hard evidence", but physical evidence doesn't become "hard" without witness testimony.
    All physical evidence needs someone to explain it. The problem comes when someone explains what occurred through the lens of physical evidence.
    This is where physical evidence can be misleading because it can be interpreted incorrectly, this is what is called assumptions.
    It is like trying to determine the formula of a math problem by only looking at the answer. The assumptions are that you only use simple math, algebra, trigonometry, or calculus.
    Eye witness evidence gives an idea or template of the formula. This is extremely helpful in understanding how we come to the answer.


    >>>I already answered this. The weight would already be there in the form of increased air pressure. This wouldn't affect tectonic activity, the way you think it would, this is all just wild speculation.<<<

    Could be, but as you already mentioned:


    >>>There are dozens of factors I can't even claim to begin to understand, everything from subterranean features, ocean currents, sea temperatures, the moon's orbit, just so much stuff to consider. <<<
    There are so many factors that to say that it would not affect tectonic activity.


    >>>Then how did it get to be not uniform in such a short period of time? The Appalachian mountains are almost half a billion years old, they need that kind of time to form by folding over, you can see the folds when you drive along cuts in the hills on the highway. You are trying to tell me this is all fake news. I'm sorry but you are just wrong, this never happened. The global flood story is a myth.<<<

    Scientists misdated two-hundred-year-old Hawaii rock 160 million to 3 billion years old.
    Scientists misdated 10-year-old rock at 2.8 million years old.
    We are not talking about the age of the mountain but we are talking about what caused it to increase in size.

     
    >>>Sometimes we see hurricanes like this that affect Africa and the middle east, and there are theories that they would have been more prevalent in the past, but they don't affect all of Asia, Europe and Africa, just the Africa and middle east primarily. However for a ancient story, this would have been a trivial issue since you can only see about 12 NM when at sea anyways due to the curvature of the earth, so to stay that far from land for a month is easy.<<<

    Although it is realistic to believe that a flood only affected a small area. It doesn't explain why a majority of cultures have similarities in a flood story.  Even to conclude there are all separate stories, for them to all reference a vessel with only a few survivors is too coincidental.


    >>>If there was any indication of a water canopy we would see it in ice cores.<<<
    No, we wouldn't, especially if the ice cores did not exist.



    >>>Every single one of them argues for an old earth and an evolved human race. Eyewitness testimony would not have been available until after the written word was developed, thus it is unreliable for natural history. Eye witness testimony is still considered the least reliable form of evidence, even today.

    You are correct with this reference.
    Notice this reference says about physical evidence.
    "frequently physical evidence is worthless."
    "Every case needs some form of testimonial evidence."
    So even though testimonial evidence is not reliable, physical evidence is more frequently worthless, because you need testimony, witness evidence.



    >>>Besides this, the stories in the bible were not recorded until decades or even centuries after the events, so they were not eyewitness testimony anyways. I have picked a Christian source so you will know it is unbiased. http://bibleresources.americanbible.org/resource/how-the-bible-came-to-us Ever played the telephone game? That is how accurate the bible is at the least but over very long periods of time. Who knows what was lost or added to these fables, nowadays it is hard to say for sure just how much if any of it is true, like so many other ancient myths. It is just so much more likely that the earth is old, humans evolved, and our stories were mostly made up, and this is what all the evidence supports.<<<

    We assume it was the way the Bible was transmitted. Because the materials they used disintegrated, we assume that Moses was the first writer. He is the first known writer. But the information in the Bible is too complex to be transferred by memory.

  • @Sand ;
    I didn't quote out of context. He was asked a direct question. And he didn't come out with this answer from his butt, you can tell he placed thought into it. This concept may not fit in his philosophy, but it was obvious that he placed a considerable study into that conclusion, enough to mention his views on television. Although he is mentioning it was technically possible, there was more to what he was revealing. What he is alluding to is there are some conclusions you cannot come to without the presence of intelligence.
    I think you still misunderstand what he is saying. He doesn't mean that things need intelligence to happen, he is saying that intelligence can do what happens randomly or naturally.
    But not all UV light is needed.
    Not all water blocks light.
    What I mean is an invisible vapor canopy in our upper atmosphere. As cooler vapor nears space, water condenses and begins to haze, though as long as the vapor in the upper atmosphere is kept warm and above the dew point, it could remain invisible.
    If the water vapor is nearing space it will condense into clouds in the upper stratosphere. If this "water canopy" theory is to have any credibility (it's pseudo-science garbage) you have to explain how exactly that water existed there without blocking light, because remember, in order for it to be enough to cover the earth it has to be several times the amount of water on earth today, stay there for billions of years, only to all of a sudden come raining down for no reason in the near past and then disappear. This is just straight magical thinking.

    That picture you submit is a mockery of physics- 


    Here is the graph of light absorption by water. As you can see, violet and UV light has the lowest absorption rate. What this means, is that in order for UV light to penetrate water, it will block more light in the visible spectrum, and lower frequency light (Radio waves, Infrared, microwaves) will not penetrate as easily and will be largely attenuated. Thus the world would be dark (surprise! water canopy = more clouds) 
    Nevertheless, Gilgamesh is not the only story out there about a flood. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos, and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. For each of them to mention a flood, a vessel, few survivors lend to the credibility of what occurred. The Bible is the only book that has extensive details regarding the event.
    Did you miss where I said that sea levels would have risen dramatically after the last ice age?
    No, these stories do not give credibility to the bible, because first:
    • Some of the stories pre-dated the bible
    • The stories differ dramatically from what is in the bible
    • The bible's claim about the event are scientifically impossible
    It is so obvious that the bible stole from these stories and not the other way around. The Epic of Gilgamesh was around centuries before the book of Genesis was written.
    What I am trying to say is you cannot read a book with fingers
    Braille Mother F***er!
    You cannot always test for events.
    Information can not be destroyed. It is a fundamental law in physics. Don't bother bringing up black holes because the data is inconclusive and there are none on earth.
     Can you test if a tank drove across some land? All the soil samples you take will not show if one did or didn't.
    Trying to read ice core samples to determine if there was a watery canopy is like trying to read a book with fingers.
    I not saying it would not tell you anything. It would make more sense that the event would explain the evidence than the evidence explaining the event.
    Actually, you can tell if any or all of these things happened with enough computing power. Everything that happens can be broken down to a set of deterministic equations. If we know the state of something at any given time, then we can figure out what it was like in the past.
    The ultimate proof of the question to "what happened?" is an eye witness evidence of events.
    People lie. People forget. People invent. People modify. People die.
    Physical evidence cannot tell you what happened it can only tell you what the results are.
    The results are what happened.
    You say "Hard evidence", but physical evidence doesn't become "hard" without witness testimony.
    All physical evidence needs someone to explain it. The problem comes when someone explains what occurred through the lens of physical evidence.
    This is where physical evidence can be misleading because it can be interpreted incorrectly, this is what is called assumptions.
    It is like trying to determine the formula of a math problem by only looking at the answer. The assumptions are that you only use simple math, algebra, trigonometry, or calculus.
    Eye witness evidence gives an idea or template of the formula. This is extremely helpful in understanding how we come to the answer.

    Physical evidence = hard evidence. Witness testimony can be interpreted incorrectly physical evidence can not be misinterpreted because there IS NO INTERPRETATION, IT DOES NOT RELY ON INTERPRETING, IT IS A PART OF REALITY.
    Could be, but as you already mentioned:
    Not "could be" WOULD BE.
    There are so many factors that to say that it would not affect tectonic activity.
    Sea levels =/= air pressure
    Scientists misdated two-hundred-year-old Hawaii rock 160 million to 3 billion years old.
    Scientists misdated 10-year-old rock at 2.8 million years old.
    We are not talking about the age of the mountain but we are talking about what caused it to increase in size.
    You are cherry picking failures and claiming that is everything.
    Although it is realistic to believe that a flood only affected a small area. It doesn't explain why a majority of cultures have similarities in a flood story.  Even to conclude there are all separate stories, for them to all reference a vessel with only a few survivors is too coincidental.

    Rising sea levels after the last ice age lead to widespread flooding with many coastal towns and villages being flooded. This did happen, but it wasn't the bible story.
    No, we wouldn't, especially if the ice cores did not exist.
    If there was lots more water in the earth's atmosphere, some of it would precipitate as snow to form ice core samples. We WOULD see it, 100% there is no avoiding that.
    You are correct with this reference.
    Notice this reference says about physical evidence.
    "frequently physical evidence is worthless."
    "Every case needs some form of testimonial evidence."
    So even though testimonial evidence is not reliable, physical evidence is more frequently worthless, because you need testimony, witness evidence.
    You are conflating legal evidence with natural evidence. The evidence in a courtroom needs an explanation because a crime was committed. Specifically, there needs to be something linking say, a murder weapon to the murderer. However, with natural events there was no human agency making them happen, they just do because of physics. So in this sense, just understanding physics is sufficient without "witness testimony"
    We assume it was the way the Bible was transmitted. Because the materials they used disintegrated, we assume that Moses was the first writer. He is the first known writer. But the information in the Bible is too complex to be transferred by memory.
    Congratulations, you have just admitted it is all BS. If it couldn't have been all transmitted by memory, then we should assume it is inaccurate for the same reason the "telephone game" that you most likely played as a child yields interesting results. The bible, and the book of Genesis in particular, is a mythical story. It is not supposed to be taken as literal truth, maybe metaphorical if you are in to that. The evidence just doesn't support it.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    >>>I think you still misunderstand what he is saying. He doesn't mean that things need intelligence to happen, he is saying that intelligence can do what happens randomly or naturally.<<<
    I believe he is making my point. That creation by intelligence is possible.


    >>>If the water vapor is nearing space it will condense into clouds in the upper stratosphere. If this "water canopy" theory is to have any credibility (it's pseudo-science garbage) you have to explain how exactly that water existed there without blocking light, because remember, in order for it to be enough to cover the earth it has to be several times the amount of water on earth today, stay there for billions of years, only to all of a sudden come raining down for no reason in the near past and then disappear. This is just straight magical thinking.<<<

    At a circumference volume of 326,512,020 miles, the earth has more than enough water in the ocean alone 332,519,000 cubic miles.
    Water is almost perfectly transparent to 'visible' light, a property that is made good use of by photosynthesis and allowing the production of both biomass and oxygen. However, some absorption is achieved by atmospheric water.
    Refractive index of water from 2573

    According to Beer's law, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave (like those that cause C14) penetrating a material falls off exponentially with distance from the surface. Thus, the rate of decrease in the intensity of light passing through a transparent medium with distance is proportional to the concentration of the absorbing material and to the local intensity of the light at that position.

    the light from the sun before and after passing through the Earths atmosphere and the water bands responsible for some of the difference

    >>>Here is the graph of light absorption by water. As you can see, violet and UV light has the lowest absorption rate. What this means, is that in order for UV light to penetrate water, it will block more light in the visible spectrum, and lower frequency light (Radio waves, Infrared, microwaves) will not penetrate as easily and will be largely attenuated. Thus the world would be dark (surprise! water canopy = more clouds)<<<

    So not only would you be able to see but the harmful rays wouldn't even reach the ground.

    That's why we can see the fishes!

    Image result for water zoo tank



    >>>Nevertheless, Gilgamesh is not the only story out there about a flood. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos, and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. For each of them to mention a flood, a vessel, few survivors lend to the credibility of what occurred. The Bible is the only book that has extensive details regarding the event.

    Did you miss where I said that sea levels would have risen dramatically after the last ice age?
    No, these stories do not give credibility to the bible, because first:


    >>>Some of the stories pre-dated the bible<<<

    The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis.
    So the timeline of delivery was not before the Bible.


    >>>The stories differ dramatically from what is in the bible<<<

    Flood, Vessel, Survivors
    A lot of similarities.


    >>>The bible's claim about the event are scientifically impossible<<<

    In what way?
    I just showed you the science of the Bible event.
    Can you explain to me how Gilgamesh's story is more scientifically accurate?


    >>>Braille Mother F***er!<<<
    Exactly you need Braille.


    >>>Information can not be destroyed. It is a fundamental law in physics. Don't bother bringing up black holes because the data is inconclusive and there are none on earth.<<<
    There are black holes everywhere.
    Nevertheless, If information can be created it can also be destroyed.
    You can burn books, break hard drives, and disintegrate just about anything.


    >>>Actually, you can tell if any or all of these things happened with enough computing power. Everything that happens can be broken down to a set of deterministic equations. If we know the state of something at any given time, then we can figure out what it was like in the past.<<<

    That only deals with the development of future states not states of the past.


    >>>People lie. People forget. People invent. People modify. People die.<<<
    Yet it is still more reliable than physical evidence.

    >>>The results are what happened.<<<

    Let's test it, I will give you the results of a math problem.
    =45
    Can you tell me the formula?


    >>>Physical evidence = hard evidence. Witness testimony can be interpreted incorrectly physical evidence can not be misinterpreted because there IS NO INTERPRETATION, IT DOES NOT RELY ON INTERPRETING, IT IS A PART OF REALITY.<<<

    If that was the case there would be no need for witness testimony, and there would be no unsolved cases.


    >>>You are cherry picking failures and claiming that is everything.<<<
    You are missing the point.
    We are not talking about the age of the mountain but we are talking about what caused it to increase in size.


    >>>Rising sea levels after the last ice age lead to widespread flooding with many coastal towns and villages being flooded. This did happen, but it wasn't the bible story.<<<

    Was there a vessel with animals and only few survivors. You have to give historians a little more credit.


    >>>If there was lots more water in the earth's atmosphere, some of it would precipitate as snow to form ice core samples. We WOULD see it, 100% there is no avoiding that.<<<

    If the earth was all a similar temperature. Although it would snow in the winter the summer the snow would dissipate.
    The only reason you have ice core samples now is that it stays cold all year round in the artic tips of the earth.


    >>>You are conflating legal evidence with natural evidence. The evidence in a courtroom needs an explanation because a crime was committed. Specifically, there needs to be something linking say, a murder weapon to the murderer. However, with natural events there was no human agency making them happen, they just do because of physics. So in this sense, just understanding physics is sufficient without "witness testimony"<<<

    Yet with natural evidence you need someone to explain and break down the physics and how it pertains to what happened. This explanation is constantly changing based on the increased information we get to make sense of the physical world. Physics cannot tell you everything that happened in the past if it could then we would have no need for history books.


    >>>Congratulations, you have just admitted it is all BS. If it couldn't have been all transmitted by memory, then we should assume it is inaccurate for the same reason the "telephone game" that you most likely played as a child yields interesting results. The bible, and the book of Genesis in particular, is a mythical story. It is not supposed to be taken as literal truth, maybe metaphorical if you are into that. The evidence just doesn't support it.<<<

    I believe you are reading what you want to hear.
    I denoted that the manuscripts that we have of the Bible may not be the oldest writings.
    They are the oldest we know of because the materials they used would disintegrate after years of handing it down and recopying it.
    Moses obviously compiled this information into the first book.

  • @Sand
    I believe he is making my point. That creation by intelligence is possible.
    Yes, this is the point he is making, but you have changed your point now. Before you said it that: "What he is alluding to is there are some conclusions you cannot come to without the presence of intelligence."
    At a circumference volume of 326,512,020 miles, the earth has more than enough water in the ocean alone 332,519,000 cubic miles.
    Water is almost perfectly transparent to 'visible' light, a property that is made good use of by photosynthesis and allowing the production of both biomass and oxygen. However, some absorption is achieved by atmospheric water.

    According to Beer's law, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave (like those that cause C14) penetrating a material falls off exponentially with distance from the surface. Thus, the rate of decrease in the intensity of light passing through a transparent medium with distance is proportional to the concentration of the absorbing material and to the local intensity of the light at that position.
    You don't make a point here. Just saying what is scientifically true does not a point make. None of these things prove a "water canopy" The point I made before, which is that the world would be darker if it was surrounded by more water vapor in the atmosphere is based on these principles. More water = lower intensity of light because more is absorbed, refracted, and reflected.
    So not only would you be able to see but the harmful rays wouldn't even reach the ground.

    That's why we can see the fishes!
    You are reading the graph wrong, high energy photons will still reach the ground, there will just be less of them. Also, there is still attenuation of light in the visible spectrum. This means that if there is more water, there will be more attenuation, and the world will be darker than it currently is. Keep in mind this is talking about water vapor and not water particulate (clouds) which reflect light. That is why it is darker when it is overcast, even though the amount of water in the air is the same. 
    The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis.
    So the timeline of delivery was not before the Bible.
    Then why are scholars still talking about it today?
    https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/influence-gilgamesh-bible
    https://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
    https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_gilgamesh.pdf
    The fact remains that the epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the book of Genesis. How do you explain this, if not to say that the bible was influenced by these great works?
    Flood, Vessel, Survivors
    A lot of similarities.
    The devil is in the details.
    In what way?
    I just showed you the science of the Bible event.
    Can you explain to me how Gilgamesh's story is more scientifically accurate?
    In all of the ways. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Where is the evidence?
    The entire book of Genesis is scientifically absurd.
    It doesn't matter if the Epic of Gilgamesh is scientifically accurate, that's not the point. The point it the bible stole the work.
    There are black holes everywhere.
    Nevertheless, If information can be created it can also be destroyed.
    You can burn books, break hard drives, and disintegrate just about anything.

    That only deals with the development of future states not states of the past.

    Yet it is still more reliable than physical evidence.
    WRONG! There are not "black holes everywhere," and no, information can not be destroyed- consider if you burn a book the information is carried away as smoke and ash. With enough time and energy the information is completely recoverable (just not feasible)
    Let's test it, I will give you the results of a math problem.
    =45
    Can you tell me the formula?
    45 = 45
    If that was the case there would be no need for witness testimony, and there would be no unsolved cases.
    If we had access to perfect information, then this would be the case. The problem is the court's don't know everything.
    You are missing the point.
    We are not talking about the age of the mountain but we are talking about what caused it to increase in size.
    Perfectly natural tectonic activity.
    If the earth was all a similar temperature. Although it would snow in the winter the summer the snow would dissipate.
    The only reason you have ice core samples now is that it stays cold all year round in the artic tips of the earth.
    The earth would not be a uniform temperature, because some areas receive less light (the poles) or have higher pressures. Also summer/winter cycle as you mentioned.
    Yet with natural evidence you need someone to explain and break down the physics and how it pertains to what happened. This explanation is constantly changing based on the increased information we get to make sense of the physical world. Physics cannot tell you everything that happened in the past if it could then we would have no need for history books.
    This may happen in the future. When/if it does, then we will finally be able to prove that all religions are inventions of man.
    I believe you are reading what you want to hear.
    I denoted that the manuscripts that we have of the Bible may not be the oldest writings.
    They are the oldest we know of because the materials they used would disintegrate after years of handing it down and recopying it.
    Moses obviously compiled this information into the first book.
    Just because someone wrote something in a book doesn't make it true. In fact, it has no bearing on the reality of the claim. I can easily write something that is false. Suppose if in 3,000 years from now, a future civilization found our comic books, the only thing surviving of our culture. Would they assume these things actually happened, if since then the works had developed into a new religion?

    This is more or less what probably happened with the bible stories. They were never supposed to be literal truth, they were always metaphorical.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 216 Pts
    >>>Yes, this is the point he is making, but you have changed your point now. Before you said it that: "What he is alluding to is there are some conclusions you cannot come to without the presence of intelligence."<<<

    Sorry double negative, do not get into that habit.


    >>>You don't make a point here. Just saying what is scientifically true does not a point make. None of these things prove a "water canopy" The point I made before, which is that the world would be darker if it was surrounded by more water vapor in the atmosphere is based on these principles. More water = lower intensity of light because more is absorbed, refracted, and reflected.<<<

    No, what I was saying is according to the graph visible light can pass through water it is true it would lower the intensity but you would still be able to see clearly. Not water vapor like a cloud a layer of water that would sit in the thermosphere evenly distributed. The UV rays that would penetrate according to Beer's Law would not reach the ground.


    >>>You are reading the graph wrong, high energy photons will still reach the ground, there will just be less of them. Also, there is still attenuation of light in the visible spectrum. This means that if there is more water, there will be more attenuation, and the world will be darker than it currently is. Keep in mind this is talking about water vapor and not water particulate (clouds) which reflect light. That is why it is darker when it is overcast, even though the amount of water in the air is the same.<<<

    Although it will be brighter than an overcast, in a complete overcast, you can still see.

    The Canopy would be darker because it is water in the gas state, but I am talking about water in the liquid state.
    The Canopy in a liquid state would be only slightly lower intensity.
    The chart shows photon would penetrate but Beer's Law shows harmful rays would fall off exponentially with distance from the surface.


    >>>Then why are scholars still talking about it today?
    https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/influence-gilgamesh-bible
    https://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/
    https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc_gilgamesh.pdf
    The fact remains that the epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the book of Genesis. How do you explain this, if not to say that the bible was influenced by these great works?<<<

    The explanation is a worldwide flood.
    With a worldwide war.
    Many countries would have accounts of the event.
    It doesn't mean that one country had a war and everyone else copied the event.


    >>>In all of the ways. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? Where is the evidence? The entire book of Genesis is scientifically absurd. It doesn't matter if the Epic of Gilgamesh is scientifically accurate, that's not the point. The point it the bible stole the work.<<<

    There are too many things preventing Moses from copying the work.

    #1 Gilgamesh was written in stone - So Moses would have to have traveled to the country where the story was located.
    #2 They speak different languages - This is a huge obstacle because there is no Rosetta Stone to teach persons another language.
    #3 Linguist now can tell if something has been plagiarized - There are cues that would indicate if the information was taken from someone else.


    >>>WRONG! There are not "black holes everywhere," and no, information can not be destroyed- consider if you burn a book the information is carried away as smoke and ash. With enough time and energy the information is completely recoverable (just not feasible)<<<



    >>>45 = 45<<<

    Lol.
    9A-9B=45


    >>>If we had access to perfect information, then this would be the case. The problem is the court's don't know everything.<<<

    Good point, "if".


    >>>This may happen in the future. When/if it does, then we will finally be able to prove that all religions are inventions of man.<<<

    I can't wait for that day!


    >>>Just because someone wrote something in a book doesn't make it true. In fact, it has no bearing on the reality of the claim. I can easily write something that is false. Suppose if, in 3,000 years from now, a future civilization found our comic books, the only thing surviving of our culture. Would they assume these things actually happened, if since then the works had developed into a new religion? This is more or less what probably happened with the bible stories. They were never supposed to be literal truth, they were always metaphorical.<<<

    It would have to pass the historical methodology, which would fail miserably.

  • @Sand
    No, what I was saying is according to the graph visible light can pass through water it is true it would lower the intensity but you would still be able to see clearly. Not water vapor like a cloud a layer of water that would sit in the thermosphere evenly distributed. The UV rays that would penetrate according to Beer's Law would not reach the ground.
    UV light penetrates further than visible light in water vapor, this does nothing to the fact that there would be less light on earth the same way that there is less light when you go underwater. It also doesn't explain temperature stabilization, because Infrared would still be trapped due to the fact that it can not be rejected into space as easily, meaning the world would be hotter.

    Scientifically speaking, I don't think the planet would be hospitable to life as we know it before, and if there was such a dramatic change like this so quickly, it likely wouldn't be capable of survival afterwords.
    Although it will be brighter than an overcast, in a complete overcast, you can still see.
    Darker =/= can't see. I'm not arguing you can't see, I'm saying that it would be darker, meaning plants would be a different color.
    The Canopy would be darker because it is water in the gas state, but I am talking about water in the liquid state.
    The Canopy in a liquid state would be only slightly lower intensity.
    The chart shows photon would penetrate but Beer's Law shows harmful rays would fall off exponentially with distance from the surface
    You still are not making a point here.
    The explanation is a worldwide flood.
    With a worldwide war.
    Many countries would have accounts of the event.
    It doesn't mean that one country had a war and everyone else copied the event.
    I don't understand how this argues against the base claim in any way. The point is that the bible story was stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh.
    There are too many things preventing Moses from copying the work.

    #1 Gilgamesh was written in stone - So Moses would have to have traveled to the country where the story was located.
    #2 They speak different languages - This is a huge obstacle because there is no Rosetta Stone to teach persons another language.
    #3 Linguist now can tell if something has been plagiarized - There are cues that would indicate if the information was taken from someone else.
    1 isn't a problem because they came from the same place.
    2 isn't a problem because translators exist and had to in order for the rosette stone to exist in the first place. People still spoke Akkadian when Genesis was compiled.
    3 There are lots of similarities between the stories to indicate that it was ripped off.

    These kinds of black holes are still millions of light years away and do not effect information on earth, my point still stands.

    Lol.
    9A-9B=45
    I think I made my point. The left side of the equation still equals 45.
    I can't wait for that day!
    Neither can I, so that you can finally put away your childish beliefs, and religion can be put down like the feral dog that it is.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch