Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry - II the dialogues

Bill Nye Answered on "Science Works" Meme, Inter Alia · Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood, sorry, the Ark - I, my comments · Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry - II the dialogues

Carried on from here:

Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood, sorry, the Ark - I, my comments

Dialogues

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:07 Land bridge or near such ... Sunda Sahul, during glacial maximum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

That Glacial Maximum is misdated as older than 5000 years ago is another story.

Scott E

That Glacial Maximum is misdated as older than 5000 years ago is another story.

It being "another story" doesn't excuse you from providing a credible scientific reference for it. This is a standard creationist tactic: pull in a random scientific fact that supports your myths and treat it as completely credible, while dismissing as false (and without evidence) any related facts that cause additional problems for the story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scott E Reference?

Passim on CMI (creation.com is their url).

Work about details?

W e l l - so happens I have done some myself. But that is not what is normally meant by "scientific reference" - is it?

@Scott E "while dismissing as false (and without evidence) any related facts that cause additional problems for the story."

There is no fact causing insurmountable problems for the story.

Simply a matter of letting C14 content back then have been considerably lower.

Scott E

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Passim on CMI (@t is their url).

Like I said, a credible scientific reference. I.e., an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, detailing both conclusions and replicable methodology, by scientists with credentials in an applicable field.

Simply a matter of letting C14 content back then have been considerably lower.

So show credible scientific evidence that it was. You just imagining it to be so doesn't get us anywhere.

Note

If he is not giving their URL, was he not shown it? Or is he refusing to credit it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scott E "Like I said, a credible scientific reference. I.e., an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, detailing both conclusions and replicable methodology, by scientists with credentials in an applicable field."

Check Michael Oard on CMI.

"So show credible scientific evidence that it was. You just imagining it to be so doesn't get us anywhere."

Show "credible evidence" of opposite?

The Bible is credible evidence of carbon 14 having been lower.

History primes reconstruction, when it comes to the past and the Bible is credible history, therefore deep time is NOT credible reconstruction.

Scott E

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

You're the one who claimed that the dating of the last glacial maximum was wrong. You provide the reference to the actual scientific journal article showing that. It's not our job to go digging to prove your claims. If Michael Oard, whoever he is, has such an article on CMI, whatever that is, you must have read it and should be able to provide a direct link to it here without much trouble.

The Bible is credible evidence of carbon 14 having been lower.

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

Show "credible evidence" of opposite?

I'm not the one claiming C-14 levels were anything in particular. You are, and it is your claims that require them to be something specific. The burden of proof is on the person making a particular claim. That's you. I hope you don't actually think "prove me wrong" makes for a convincing argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Scott E "I'm not the one claiming C-14 levels were anything in particular."

Yes, you are.

If you say "last glacial maximum was" - citing wiki: "The ice sheets reached their maximum coverage about 26,500 years ago (26.5 ka BP)," you are claiming two things:

• 1) The organic remains associated with LGM have 4.053 percent modern Carbon.
• 2) They started out with 100 pmC.

So, this means, you are claiming carbon levels were at 100 pmC.

Suppose they had been at 200 pmC, 4.053 pmC would really be 2.0265 percent left of that, and it would have been 32,200 years ago.

Suppose they had been at 50 pmC (a level I consider they reached after Göbekli Tepe), that would have been 8.106 percent left, and it would have been only 20,750 years ago. NB, with the constant known half life known as Cambridge halflife.

So, if they had been at 25 pmC, that would be 16.212 percent left, 15,050 years ago.

At 12.5 pmC when they started, it would be 32.424 percent left, 9300 years ago.

At 6.25 when they started, it would be 64.848 percent left, 3600 years ago.

I believe it was more than 3600 and less than 9300 years ago. I go to my previous work, and I look it up:

2913	BC
	6.333 pmc 25 713 BC
2868	BC
	11.641 pmc, 20 668 BC

Ah, so, it started out between 6.333 and 11.641 pmC between 2913 and 2868 BC.

2913		06.333		+
2868		11.641		=
5781		17.974		: 2 =
2890		08.987

So, 8.987 pmC should give us 19,900 extra years from when it started. After 4890 years there should be 55.348 percent left of that.

55.348 * 8.987 / 100 = 4.974 pmC left. A bit higher than the 4.053 pmC I think the remains are showing and a bit more recent than "last" (or only) glacial maximum.

"Earlier" glacial maxima are not carbon dated anyway.

"If Michael Oard, whoever he is,"

Michael Oard
https://creation.com/michael-oard

Note, MS in Atmospheric science.

"has such an article on CMI, whatever that is,"

Creation Ministries International
https://creation.com/

"you must have read it and should be able to provide a direct link to it here without much trouble."

Today, yes, I have more time, I'm in a library - yesterday, I was in a cyber with limited time. Here is one article:

Tackling the big freeze
An interview with weather scientist Michael Oard
by Carl Wieland (December 1996)
https://creation.com/tackling-the-big-freeze

@Scott E btw, I forgot linking to my previous work, here is my own article:

Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

Scott E

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
*Yes, you are.

If you say "last glacial maximum was" - citing wiki: [etc]*

Except that I said no such thing, nor cited any wiki, nor made any claim to knowledge about any Carbon-14 levels anywhere, at any time. I think you're hallucinating. The only person making C-14 claims here is you.

I see no actual measured data in your own explanation, mostly some math and personal suppositions that aren't explained well, nor supported in any way. Sure, if you assume your preferred target date from the outset (the one that makes your myth work), you can calculate back to see what environmental C-14 levels then would have been. Congratulations on doing an exponential decay calculation correctly. There's only the tiny snag that your target date is the thing you're trying to show in the first place. It is thus on you to show, by some other means, that C-14 levels at that time actually were at the low level you need them to be.

Michael Oard sounds like an interesting person, to put it politely. While his degree and occupation seem applicable to what you're saying, an interview is not a peer-reviewed journal article, and "Journal of Creation" is not a credible peer-reviewed research journal in his field, e.g., Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Atmospheric Science Letters, or a number of others. From a brief search about him, he appears to have earned his master's degree in 1973 and only ever published articles in creationist magazines and web sites since then, plus some children's books. You'd think that if he had anything to say that other scientists in his field were willing to take seriously, he'd have said it in journals used by those scientists and not just "journals" where the audience knows nothing about the relevant science and are eager to have their beliefs confirmed by "experts".

gsundiszno

First problem with your position is that the biblical flood ALLEGEDLY occurred less than 6,000 years ago. Your bible claims a creation of the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. Human habitation is known to have existed in the Australian continent for up to 65,000 years ago. One set of claims is very inconsistent with the other and all the evidence supports the 65,000 years version.

Second problem is that if the kangaroos (and all the other species unique to Australia) used the Sunda Sahul then why are those species unique to Australia? Surely there must have been some suitable environments along the way?

You make very poor arguments. Try again!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Has anyone in the employment of CMI ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal????

Seriously, CMI, AiG, and all the similar propaganda organizations spend most of their time and money on using lawyers trying to force their religious views on society despite the American Constitution (they are American organizations working in the USA primarily) clearly states that this is a secular nation.

WHAT CMI DOESN'T DO IS PUBLISH SCIENCE PAPERS!!!

LOL!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Michael J. Oard has only one paper to his credit from any source besides various creationist groups. It was published in 1968, at his alma mater (University of Washington) and presumably either part of his education (dissertation) or before he went creationist.

Not one paper is listed after that time period that was published at a science publication. Only religious propaganda groups. Okay, he did one paper on wind phenomena prediction. If he had actual evidence he should brave the peer-review process. Lacking anything besides wishful fantasies he has hidden behind the propaganda program. Punch in "Michael Oard" at 'scholar.google.com'. Basically he is a liar, in my opinion!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did your study of carbon 14 include the rate for replacement caused by alpha radiation which would INCREASE the number of carbon 14 isotopes?

You clearly suffer from the pathetic methodology of creationists whereby they have a result and only look for alleged evidence to support their preferred conclusion instead of looking at the evidence and using that to make the determination of a result. Really pathetic abuse of the scientific method.

Watch this video and learn more about carbon 14 radiometric dating!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXSYBp-Kjx0

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Michael J. Oard has only one paper to his credit from any source besides various creationist groups."

"Not one paper is listed after that time period that was published at a science publication. Only religious propaganda groups. Okay, he did one paper on wind phenomena prediction. If he had actual evidence he should brave the peer-review process."

You are missing that CMI is a science group and has peer review.

"Did your study of carbon 14 include the rate for replacement caused by alpha radiation which would INCREASE the number of carbon 14 isotopes?"

You mean replacement in the atmosphere? It certainly did.

My top speed of replacement is 11 times the present production, from beginning to end of Göbekli Tepe, which I identified with Babel of Genesis 11.

Did you mean in samples? If so, that would be a lame excuse for not getting the implications of "millions of years' specimina" carbon dating to 20,000 - 50,000 years.

"instead of looking at the evidence and using that to make the determination of a result."

The available evidence is:

• from the present, the present remains of carbon 14 in old samples
• from the past, as in viewed in the past, the history.

If you discount Genesis from being history you will get another result than if you [count it as such, sorry, was hasty and tired]

"Watch this video and learn more about carbon 14 radiometric dating!"

Might do, not sure if I'll learn more about it there.

"First problem with your position is that the biblical flood ALLEGEDLY occurred less than 6,000 years ago. Your bible claims a creation of the whole universe about 6,000 years ago. Human habitation is known to have existed in the Australian continent for up to 65,000 years ago. One set of claims is very inconsistent with the other and all the evidence supports the 65,000 years version."

There is a little problem with your allegation.

The 65,000 years are not from a carbon date, but another method. If you go carbon dates, Mungo man or Mungo woman is dated to c. 20,000 BP

If we go to my table again, that would nearly exactly be 2868 BC. With 11.641 pmc, back then, we get 17800 extra years, so 20 668 BC ... that would be just before the Mungo specimen.

Btw, I am using a Biblical chronology based on LXX, in Roman Martyrology, giving Creation in 5199 BC - or Christmas day 5199 years after Creation. Flood in 2957 BC.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scott E "Except that I said no such thing, nor cited any wiki, nor made any claim to knowledge about any Carbon-14 levels anywhere, at any time. I think you're hallucinating."

No, I am drawing out the implications of your claim.

If YOU don't know anything about carbon levels at all, YOU have no problem with "last" glacial maximum being in first half of 29th C. BC. You are perhaps trusting others who claim 26 500 BP? Well, THEY base that on two claims about carbon 14 levels, a directly testable one for the present, and one not directly testable for when samples are from.

So, if YOU don't know ANYTHING about carbon levels, you are still trusting OTHERS who claim they DO.

@Scott E "I see no actual measured data in your own explanation,"

In the wiki, the date for "last glacial maximum" was given at 26 500 BP.

THAT means a supposition of 100 pmC when organic samples started + a measure of 4.053 pmC.

So, the wiki is indirectly giving a measured datum for organic samples from "LGM".

Oh, if you want to know how I convert pmC to years or vice versa, I usually leave that to the Carbon 14 Dating Calculator:

Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

It uses the same maths as what the scientists are using (they may also use some calibration, but it is supposed to be about marginal vaccillations in initial pmC), and the mathematician who made the program is not a Young Earth Creationist.

@Scott E "personal suppositions that aren't explained well, nor supported in any way. Sure, if you assume your preferred target date from the outset (the one that makes your myth work),"

Carbon dates work at all because we can check carbon dates with history.

Libby gave the wrong halflife, one that is slightly too short.

It has been corrected thanks to history.

Now, this means, history is important in determining whether carbon levels were at 100 pmC or not.

You carbon date anything that's 2000 years old, and you know from history it is, a result like 78.511 pmC both confirms that and the Cambridge halflife.

As for "not explained well" if you don't think so, carbon dating was never explained well to you in the first place, you just trusted it bc "science".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno I found one of yours just now, so here is more for you:

"Has anyone in the employment of CMI ever published a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal????"

Creation is a science journal and it is peer reviewed.

"Seriously, CMI, AiG, and all the similar propaganda organizations spend most of their time and money on using lawyers trying to force their religious views on society"

Did you eat the wrong mushroom yesterday?

No one of their lawyers is forcing any person or institution to convert to Evangelical or to Creationist.

"despite the American Constitution (they are American organizations working in the USA primarily) clearly states that this is a secular nation."

You need to read up on 1st Amendment. It states no such thing.

@gsundiszno "Second problem is that if the kangaroos (and all the other species unique to Australia) used the Sunda Sahul then why are those species unique to Australia? Surely there must have been some suitable environments along the way?"

Answered by CMI : marsupials are timid, and so they hurried to get to a place where left alone by intimidating species.

Scott E

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
If YOU don't know anything about carbon levels at all, YOU have no problem with "last" glacial maximum being in first half of 29th C. BC.

If that's when credible scientists say when it was, perhaps that is so, or perhaps not. I'm not making any evaluation of that, because I'm not familiar with any of those claims or conclusions or methods they used to achieve them. My state of knowledge on it is simply that I don't know. YOU are the one making a very specific claim here, and I have yet to see it backed up by any evidence I should take seriously. Stop trying to dodge that by turning it back on me, and prove your claims.

Where is your evidence that starting levels of environmental C-14 were between 6 and 11 instead of 100? Even if 100 is wrong, why should your particular values be right, other than that you want them to be, so the math going forward from that gives you the date that makes you happy about your beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scott E "If that's when credible scientists say when it was, perhaps that is so, or perhaps not. I'm not making any evaluation of that, because I'm not familiar with any of those claims or conclusions or methods they used to achieve them."

How will you evaluate who of them and I is "credible" without going into the exact nature of the evidence?

I don't go by "credible", I ask myself what evidence they are using and if it would work on my theory too, which it does.

And them ignoring that is their scientific ideology.

"Where is your evidence that starting levels of environmental C-14 were between 6 and 11 instead of 100?"

No, first, you mix it up. Starting levels of samples dated to 26 500 BP.

Environmental C14 started even lower on my theory, as Flood is before the Ice Age maximum.

A Neanderthal dated to 50 000 BP (if carbon dated) lived before the Flood, so between 5199 and 2957 BC (tending to latter date but not quite on it), which means the sample is about 45 000 extra years of instant age, when the Neanderthal died and gave up his soul to God.

This means, he started out with 0.432 pmC, meaning he presumably could have breathed an atmosphere with 0.432 pmC - 200 times less than now.

Now, my evidence for this is, as already said, the Biblical chronology (as well as some evidence Neanderthals were pre-Flood men, but not the lineage of pre-Flood men we come from as post-Flood men : one daughter in law of Noah would have been part Neanderthal, but have a mother who wasn't and as woman also have no Y chromosome, since Y chromosomes and mitochondriae are two parts of the Neanderthal genome conspicuously lacking today).

My general principle, not shared by the guys you chose to lable credible scientists, is, history primes reconstruction AND Genesis is history.

They would arguably share the first statement of that principle and apply it to what they admit as credible history and I apply it to what I admit as such.

@Scott E "why should your particular values be right,"

Because recorded history.

What you call "my beliefs" is my belief that Genesis is recorded history. Not just chapters 12 - 50 (which all or near all Christians admit), but chapters 2 to 11 (chapter 1 involves some pre-history, near unique in going six days back beyond human eyewitness to events, only John 1:1 goes further back).

If I believed some other history, I would of course not be proposing such values. The set you consider credible scientists are accepting "Deep Time" as credible history and are therefore fine with environment has had around 100 pmC for all or most of last 100 000 years. I have created some technical problems for me by disagreeing, but I think I have solved them.

They and I agree the value was 100 pmC 2000 years ago, since a sample from then carbon dates at about 78 pmC. A "recentist" claiming Augustus died (though we are not likely to have his body to test, he was cremated) 300 years or 1000 years more recently than that would have to conclude carbon was lower 1700 or 1000 years ago. I don't, and the guys you call credible scientists don't because neither of us are recentists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno Video - I actually already watched it and came into a series of debates commenting under it.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating-with-tony-reed.html

Scott E

Hans-Georg Lundahl So you start with the completely non-scientific presupposition that Genesis is an accurate record of history, and then tack on some science after that to do some calculations that let you prove to people that Genesis is an accurate record of history (which is the question this all started with and what the debate in the video was about). Typical creationist drivel, borrowing bits of science where it suits you and dismissing it where it doesn't, to fit the things you've decided beforehand to believe no matter what.

gsundiszno

Hans-Georg Lundahl CMI is a science group? LOL! Sure, kid, and Santa is a polar explorer! Any carbon 12 atom can be converted to carbon 14 at any time if it collides with alpha radiation. I love that you mention Gobekli Tepe. You managed to point out a man-made structure that predates the alleged "creation" of the entire universe. Great job invalidating your silly claims. If you understood radiometric dating you would know that carbon dating has a specific range and other isotopes have to be measured for time frames outside of carbon's known range. SNORK, CMI is a science group! You are a funny dude!

ROFLMAO@U! Dude, every species makes all efforts to avoid their predators! Even you do. When you get a small cut don't you put some sort of antibiotic on the wound? Not only that but the fact remains that no specimens/remains/fossils/etc have been found outside of their current range!!!! Oh, I beat that CMI will claim that the predators hid the skeletons! How much energy have you wasted trying to make a myth "work"????? I bet you might even be a flat-earther! There are bible verses that support that "fact"!!!! LOL!

Does CMI think that the thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) was "timid"? How about the Tasmanian Devil?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

gsundiszno "CMI is a science group? LOL! Sure, kid, and Santa is a polar explorer!"

And a yogi is a PhD physicist ...

"Any carbon 12 atom can be converted to carbon 14 at any time if it collides with alpha radiation."

Possible, but the present theory is, C14 atoms mainly come from N14 colliding with such very far up in the atmosphere.

You are aware that "years back" is reckoned in how few, not how many C14 there are compared to today's normal ratio C14:C12?

"I love that you mention Gobekli Tepe. You managed to point out a man-made structure that predates the alleged "creation" of the entire universe. Great job invalidating your silly claims."

If you are not in too much of an alpha state lag next time you read what I wrote, after your yoga session, you may notice, I consider that C14 content back in GT was considerably lower back when it was recent samples than for recent samples now. Like, below 50 percent of modern carbon.

This means they had more than 5730 extra years in "instant age". Which in turn means, according to chronology of Roman Martyrology (the one I favour) it comes between Flood and Abraham.

"If you understood radiometric dating you would know that carbon dating has a specific range and other isotopes have to be measured for time frames outside of carbon's known range."

If you understood it, you would know that unlike for carbon dates, these other isotopes cannot be tested about their halflife, since it is too long for studying in history of isotope studies. Or in history for known historic samples (exception : history of volcanic eruptions has a tendency to invalidate Ka-Ar).

I mean, 100 years is known history and with a half life of 5730 years, you will get (50 %)^10/573 - the Carbon dating calculator says there will be 98.798 percent modern carbon left, and the normal calculator solves the math example as 0.9879760628287868

0.9879760628287868
=98.79760628287868 %
=98.798 % = what the carbon dating calculator said.

Now, what time scale would get you such a measurable result for Ka-Ar?

1.248×10^9 years = 1,248,000,000 years.
1,248,000,000 * 10 / 573 = 21,780,105

Hello, what historians were writing down human history 21,780,105 years ago?

"SNORK, CMI is a science group! You are a funny dude!"

It takes one to know one, right?

"ROFLMAO@U! Dude, every species makes all efforts to avoid their predators!"

Sure. But some species have better capacity for the flight reaction than others. Getting to Oz is a bit quicker for a Cangaroo than for a Sloth, right?

"Even you do. When you get a small cut don't you put some sort of antibiotic on the wound? Not only that but the fact remains that no specimens/remains/fossils/etc have been found outside of their current range!!!!"

Which is a problem for evolutionists, since marsupials exist in two habitats : Australia and South America.

"Oh, I beat that CMI will claim that the predators hid the skeletons!"

You might want to look up what they actually do claim. http://creation.com

"How much energy have you wasted trying to make a myth "work"?????"

How much have you wasted to debunk one in order to make another one work?

"I bet you might even be a flat-earther! There are bible verses that support that "fact"!!!! LOL!"

In fact none that do so clearly. It is conspicuous that, one, Bible authors lived in the Old World well before Magellan and most of them before Eratosthenes and Aristotle, two, none of them felt tempted to brag in detail about his "scientific knowledge" (if he had such) of a flat earth.

It is also conspicuous, that "circle" verses work equally with a globe, since globes as well as flat surface circles have circumferences, which is what the word for "circle" mainly means, and "four corners" verses work better with four corners of Old World on a Globe (extending SE corner to Australia), or even Old World and Americas, if you treat Atlantic as a secondary inland sea:


NW British Isles or Alaska
SW Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn
SE Australia
NE Japan

So, no flat earth verses in sight ...

"Does CMI think that the thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) was "timid"? How about the Tasmanian Devil?"

Well, more like, God made sure there was one predator they didn't escape. Check running speed for Tasmanian Devil and for, say T. Rex (there were still some just after Flood) or for Tigers ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Scott E "So you start with the completely non-scientific presupposition that Genesis is an accurate record of history,"

Hello, Theory of Knowledge Department? There is an urgency!

History is not determined by science, it is science that is determined by history.

To record history, you don't need fancy science, you need a commonplace understanding of the world around you, which may have very crude scientific concepts.

But to do science, you certainly need history. If you say "bacteria mutate" you are making in reality a claim about Lenski experiment, and Lenski having arranged an experiment is history. Without that history, you don't have that science.

Yes, I suppose, as a decent historian (not as a scientist) that Genesis is well recorded history. More well recorded from 12 to 50, sufficiently well recorded from 2 to 11 and chapter 1 is (fairly unique for the Bible, though parallelled in John 1) pre-history, before human observers were around, revealed to Moses, not record he found.

"and then tack on some science after that"

Science is always tacked on after history.

"to do some calculations that let you prove to people that Genesis is an accurate record of history"

To show that it CAN be, despite a raised objection.

Very different, my reasons why Genesis IS accurate history are another concern, which I haven't touched on yet, but now I will do so.

Here is how Father George Leo Haydock comments on a verse in Genesis 3:

"Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H."

Get it? A) oral tradition is fairly reliable, and Genesis 2-11 is built on oral tradition, while later chapters could also have been written down, B) this history is confirmed by Moses composing the final book of it and his doing miracles which only God can do.

"(which is the question this all started with and what the debate in the video was about)."

In fact, Bill Nye was not debating the question from scratch, he was giving objections on a few specific points.

"Typical creationist drivel, borrowing bits of science"

What does "borrowed" science mean? You didn't discover it yourself? Fine, then most of us use borrowed science.

What does "bits of" mean? You don't know all science there is to know? Most of us don't, and I am far from exceptional.

"where it suits you and dismissing it where it doesn't,"

There is no fact of science we accept when it suits and dismiss when it doesn't. But there are facts of science we do accept and there are factoids of the "scientific world view" we don't accept.

Get your terminology straight.

"to fit the things you've decided beforehand to believe no matter what."

Science is the wrong field to ask whether one should or should not believe that Genesis is history. History is the right field.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl There were some T. rex around AFTER the alleged flood? Your evidence for this is what? There are no tigers (Panthera tigris) in Australia. Ever. Not one skeleton, partial or complete. And no sloths in Australia either.

Since you brought up sloths, how do you explain sloths making it from Central and South America all the way to the Iraq/Turkey region? From say, Panama? Walking the length of the Rockies, braving the arctic weather found in Alaska, crossing some sort of ice/land bridge at the Bering Strait, then a huge stretch of Siberia, then the Gobi desert, over the Himalayas, then the deserts of Iran, Turkey and Iraq? Never once deterred by weather, great mountain ranges, considerable numbers of predators, then surviving on an Ark for a year, only to then return home?

How about flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on specific remote oceanic islands? The Kiwi bird of New Zealand? No land bridge there! Or how about the Inaccessible Island Rail from Tristan da Cunha (only on one island of the archipelago! Middle of the fierce south Atlantic!)?

So, T. rex evidence? You might find this video about T. rex soft tissues of great interest!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDY7GSf6Rk

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno "There were some T. rex around AFTER the alleged flood? Your evidence for this is what?"

• 1) T. Rex have existed since they have been found (about 30 full skeleta)
• 2) This means the following is probably pertaining to them: Genesis 6:[19] And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female.

"There are no tigers (Panthera tigris) in Australia. Ever. Not one skeleton, partial or complete. And no sloths in Australia either."

No tigers? Reason why cangaroos found it safe.

No sloths? Because they didn't hop all the way to Australia.

"Since you brought up sloths, how do you explain sloths making it from Central and South America all the way to the Iraq/Turkey region? From say, Panama? Walking the length of the Rockies, braving the arctic weather found in Alaska, crossing some sort of ice/land bridge at the Bering Strait, then a huge stretch of Siberia, then the Gobi desert, over the Himalayas, then the deserts of Iran, Turkey and Iraq? Never once deterred by weather, great mountain ranges, considerable numbers of predators, then surviving on an Ark for a year, only to then return home?"

You are presuming pre-Flood geographic, oceanic, climactic conditions to be more or less like post-Flood ones. Already Four Rivers of Paradise say sth else, since the two most easiuly as well as all named alternatives for the less easily identified post-Flood ones do not have a common source after Flood. What if for instance there was an Atlantis where now there is an Atlantic? What if Atlantis sunk in post-Flood times (perhaps between Genesis 10 last verse and Genesis 11:9?)?

You are even presuming sloths are known from pre-Flood times. What if all xenarthrans from South America are post-Flood? Including "Promegatherium ("before Megatherium") is a genus of prehistoric xenarthrans that lived in Argentina, during the Late Miocene."

You see, Aquitanian Miocene "started 23.03 million years ago" and Messinian Miocene "ended 5.333 million years ago" = no carbon dating used = no guarantee they are any bit older than a Neanderthal dated to [I am sorry, I was tired and impatient and didn't end the sentence - whenever they are dated to. As carbon dated 40,000 BP. I added this afterwards:] - say 40,000 BP (carbon).

"How about flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on specific remote oceanic islands? The Kiwi bird of New Zealand? No land bridge there!"

I'll first look up how Evolutionists explain the kiwi ...

"Approximately the size of a domestic chicken, kiwi are by far the smallest living ratites (which also consist of ostriches, emus, rheas, and cassowaries)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi

Now, what about ratites?

"A ratite is any of a diverse group of flightless and mostly large and long-legged birds of the infraclass Palaeognathae."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratite

Well, duh, looks like evolutionists have exact same problem. Kiwis were flightless when they arrived. Because all ratites elsewhere (Africa or South America) are also flightless. Here is another one for you:

"Elephant birds are members of the extinct ratite family Aepyornithidae, made up of large to enormous flightless birds that once lived on the island of Madagascar. They became extinct, perhaps around 1000–1200 CE, for reasons that are unclear, although human activity is the suspected cause. Elephant birds comprised the genera Mullerornis, Vorombe and Aepyornis. While they were in close geographical proximity to the ostrich, their closest living relatives are kiwi,[2] suggesting that ratites did not diversify by vicariance during the breakup of Gondwana but instead evolved from ancestors that dispersed more recently by flying.[3]"

To spell this out for you:

"DNA sequence comparisons have yielded the surprising conclusion that kiwi are much more closely related to the extinct Malagasy elephant birds than to the moa with which they shared New Zealand."

(Kiwi article, again)

So, spread by flight and then all of them lost flight? We are not against admitting mutations may result in lost abilities, for one.

Even more, we are also not against men bringing ratites to diverse places by boats.

There seem to have been no fossil kiwis on NZ.

However, there are fossils on NZ:

Ankylosaur		Maastrichtian		Probably a nodosaur similar to Kunbarrasaurus.
Compsognathid		Tithonian		Known from phalanges. Associated with possible coprolites.
Ornithopod		Maastrichtian		Possibly an Elasmarian.
Joan Wiffen's theropod		Maastrichtian		Possibly a Megaraptoran.
Titanosaur		Maastrichtian		Known from a rib.
Unidentified dinosaur		Early Maastrichtian		Known from footprints. Possibly a thyreophoran.
Unidentified theropod		Late Cretaceous		Known from toe bone around the size of Allosaurus.
Kaiwhekea
Mauisaurus
Prognathodon
Taniwhasaurus
Tuatara.
Carsosaurus		Cenomanian
Ectenosaurus		Cretaceous
Eidolosaurus		Cretaceous
Hector's Ichthyosaur		Triassic
Kaiwhekea		Cretaceous
Komensaurus		Cretaceous
Liodon		Cretaceous		The maximum length of this species is 30 feet (9.1 m).
Mauisaurus		Cretaceous		Largest plesiosaur in New Zealand.
Moanasaurus		Cretaceous		Largest mosasaur in New Zealand.
Nothosaur		Triassic
Pontosaurus		Cretaceous
Prognathodon		Cretaceous
Pterosaur		Late Cretaceous		Possibly an Azhdarchid.
Sphenodon		Mesozoic-Holocene		Extant.
Taniwhasaurus		Cretaceous
Tuarangisaurus		Cretaceous

Since I believe that Maastrichtian and other Cretaceous, Triassic and so on are diverse pre-Flood biotopes (mainly pre-Flood), how did an Ankylosaur make it to NZ?

"Or how about the Inaccessible Island Rail from Tristan da Cunha (only on one island of the archipelago! Middle of the fierce south Atlantic!)?"

I'd say Tristan da Cunha might have been accessible from Atlantis before it sank.

"So, T. rex evidence? You might find this video about T. rex soft tissues of great interest!:"
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDY7GSf6Rk"

Have debated this elsewhere. You rely heavily on Tony Reed.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, a full blown (probably a "fool" blown) Gish Gallop! You worked pretty hard to fail so miserably at explain how the Kiwi got to Iraq/Turkey.

You also failed to include any evidence of T. rex specimens that were younger than 66 million years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

I do enjoy Tony Reed and his very well done presentations. He isn't the only one, but he is one of the best and his real virtue is that he is succinct in his presentations. You could learn from him!

Atlantis? _ROFLMAO@U!+ SNORK! MAYBE THAT IS WHERE SANTA VACATIONS! UFOS! FLAT EARTH! SASQUATCH!

You still haven't explained how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Tristan da Cunha. Or Atlantis! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno
"Wow, a full blown (probably a "fool" blown) Gish Gallop!"

If my answer was long, it was not so by heaping ten diverse arguments on each other, and hoping someone won't be able to answer them all.

That's what usually referred to as Gish Gallop. It's not limited to Creationists and it's not there in all Creationists, and considering how you attributed it to me, I am not sure it's even there in Duane Gish.

"You worked pretty hard to fail so miserably at explain how the Kiwi got to Iraq/Turkey."

If you meant I didn't give a detailed explanation, that is true.

I also do not think the ratite couple on the ark were different ones for kiwis and ostriches and emus, it could well be a common ancestor of them all.

"You also failed to include any evidence of T. rex specimens that were younger than 66 million years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus"

It has not occurred to you that "66 million years old" is a definite claim, which needs definite evidence.

Now, the pieces of evidence usually presented as warranting that are geological column and radiometric but non-carbon dates.

Did you miss the piece where I said Ka-Ar cannot have its halflife tested, because it's too long? 100 years for a halflife of 5730 years (the one for C14, documented by lots of specimens from last centuries as correct) corresponds to 21 million years for a halflife of over a billion years, which therefore is not testable.

T. Rex is a land vertebrate and "from Mesozoic" and both of these are qualities that are lacking in the actual column in Grand Canyon.

Now, land vertebrates have this property so far verified in my research, that you don't find two layers of them above each other. VERY compatible with my theory that Cretaceous and its subdivisions, Jurassic etc are simply different biotopes mostly of the pre-Flood world.

"I do enjoy Tony Reed and his very well done presentations. He isn't the only one, but he is one of the best and his real virtue is that he is succinct in his presentations. You could learn from him!"

I've debated him, he refuses to learn from me and is ultra vicious against Christianity, because he is an ex-Christian.

"Atlantis? _ROFLMAO@U!+ SNORK! MAYBE THAT IS WHERE SANTA VACATIONS! UFOS! FLAT EARTH! SASQUATCH!"

You seem to think cultural associations + despising a certain culture is enough as far as arguments are concerned. I don't belong to that subculture, but I don't despise it like you do.

"You still haven't explained how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Tristan da Cunha. Or Atlantis! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

You still haven't explained X sounds like a follow up to a Gish Gallop. Plus I kind of did. It wasn't inaccessible while Atlantis was around.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So where is "Atlantis"?? You debated Tony Reed? Where? Christianity is a man-made myth system based off of an older bronze age myth. It has the credibility equal to Zeus and Osiris. It is amazing to me that supposedly educated people would believe anything that ridiculous! And then heap "righteous indignity" on top! Too fricking funny if it weren't so pathetic.

The only "culture" I despise is the culture of "willful ignorance".

And still no evidence for T. rex being alive at the same time as humans. Or a plausible explanation for how any flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on extremely remote oceanic islands could have made it to Iraq/Turkey and back. Nor any for the sloths...............

But keep trying, your slogans are so darned cute!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno
"So where is "Atlantis"??"

It seems shallows have been found by submarine investigations.

"You debated Tony Reed? Where?"

Among others, here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Radiometric Dating with Tony Reed (update : and others)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-radiometric-dating-with-tony-reed.html

"Christianity is a man-made myth system based off of an older bronze age myth."

As for Christianity being a man-made myth, I think I countered it here:

somewhere else : Could a Community Arising a Century Later Invent ...
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/12/could-community-arising-century-later.html

"It has the credibility equal to Zeus and Osiris."

To what exact claims of them?

"It is amazing to me that supposedly educated people would believe anything that ridiculous!"

It's amazing how so much despising of culture could go into ... culture.

"And then heap "righteous indignity" on top! Too fricking funny if it weren't so pathetic."

I don't think I did righteous indignity, in fact ... were you thinking of someone else?

"The only "culture" I despise is the culture of "willful ignorance"."

There is more than one culture you despise by branding it so. Wilful disagreement with your culture would be more correct.

"And still no evidence for T. rex being alive at the same time as humans."

Except history.

Except carbon dates of Dinosaurs getting into the span of carbon dates for human skeleta.

"Or a plausible explanation for how any flightless, non-aquatic birds found only on extremely remote oceanic islands could have made it to Iraq/Turkey and back. Nor any for the sloths..............."

I think your lack of detail in response to my answer shows wilful ignorance on your part.

"But keep trying, your slogans are so darned cute!"

How about learning to read? I gave no slogans, I gave arguments ... (wait, a yogi might want to abstain from yoga or other alpha states before actually dealing with that for at least half an hour) (OK, that was a slogan, feel free to call that cute).

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, what, no evidence forthcoming on the existence of T. rexs alive at the same time as human? How are you forging ahead on your explanation of sloths getting to Iraq/Turkey? What about those flightless, non-aquatic birds from remote oceanic islands?

Hell, I haven't even brought up the Giant Palouse Worm!!!

Never mind the remote and rare plants!!!!

You also never explained away how Gobekli Tepe could have existed for some 5,000 years BEFORE the universe!!!

Since you seem to be Catholic I have some questions. To be fair, are you Catholic???

ans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno
"So, what, no evidence forthcoming on the existence of T. rexs alive at the same time as human?"

As said, Genesis 6. Now, YOU have no evidence to the contrary. That some scientists consider 66 million years proven fact doesn't shift the burden of proof to me, unless I have no answer to their purported proofs, which I had.

READ OUR DIALOGUE AGAIN:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-supposed-to-destroy-flood-or.html

You scroll down past I, II, III, IV, V to Dialogues, then I.

"How are you forging ahead on your explanation of sloths getting to Iraq/Turkey?"

I mentioned Atlantis, did I not? Besides, I also mentioned sloths perhaps not being known from pre-Flood times.

"What about those flightless, non-aquatic birds from remote oceanic islands?"

I think I already DID mention:

• evolutionists have the same problem
• as far as I am concerned, kiwis could have been brought along by Maoris.

"Hell, I haven't even brought up the Giant Palouse Worm!!!"

No, you haven't. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Palouse_earthworm

Where is the argument against the Flood?

"Never mind the remote and rare plants!!!!"

Tree mats floating above the flood, and some plants remaining alive.

"You also never explained away how Gobekli Tepe could have existed for some 5,000 years BEFORE the universe!!!"

AGAIN, READ OUR DIALOGUE AGAIN:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bill Nye Supposed to Destroy the Flood or Ark, sorry
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/12/bill-nye-supposed-to-destroy-flood-or.html

You scroll down past I, II, III, IV, V to Dialogues, then I.

If carbon levels in the atmosphere breathed by the organic material of GT when alive were like 42 - 47 % of the modern level, GT fits very neatly between 350 and 401 after the Flood - where it should be, if Babel.

"Since you seem to be Catholic I have some questions. To be fair, are you Catholic???"

Yes. I am also one of the Catholics who reject "Vatican II", "John Paul II" and for that matter already "Paul VI" and their successors as non-popes, as pseudo-popes, as anti-popes. And if you were bringing up Pius XII, well Dignitatis Humanae doesn't decide either way, and the allocution to a group of scientists in 1951, the year after, is just the level of an allocution, definitely lower than an encyclical adressed to all bishops.

@gsundiszno I'm impressed on how dense you can come off as being, in an oral situation, that might be a winner. As it is, people can check our dialogue.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You made the claim that T. rex was alive during the time of humans. Per your argument of "genesis" said so then you'll also have to prove dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giant, as well as talking donkeys and snakes! Not one skeleton has been found of T. rex that is less than 66 million years old.

Not one skeleton has been found for the dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giants. They are mythological from your "book of magic".

Sad.

The rest is just more blather......

Oh, except that earth worms can't survive for a year in saltwater, silly child!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl says the man who believes T. rex played on the Ark! I'll bet you think they were vegetarians as well! LOL!

[refers to my point of his tactic of playing dense]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno
"You made the claim that T. rex was alive during the time of humans."

Yes, based on history, and you made a definite counterclaim.

"Per your argument of "genesis" said so then you'll also have to prove dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giant, as well as talking donkeys and snakes!"

You are missing what I said to Scott E : Genesis is history, history primes science, not the other way round.

Donkeys and snakes usually don't talk, one of each did, and in each case it was an angelic being talking through them.

Dragons would be one indication outside Genesis that T. Rex or Dimetrodon Grandis or some such coexisted with man.

Unicorns might be the traditional name for Ceratopsians.

Human giants, well, some bones that could be dinosaurian also could be human giants : head and most of skeleton missing doesn't tell which femur it was.

Satyrs, well, we have at least Greek and Roman tradition, plus Scottish kelpies to back up the "hairy ones" which could also mean something else.

"Not one skeleton has been found of T. rex that is less than 66 million years old."

Not one skeleton of T. Rex has been found that is more than 7000 years old.

My proof : Biblical chronology - what's yours? We each made a definite claim, we each need backing it up.

"Not one skeleton has been found for the dragons, satyrs, unicorns and human giants. They are mythological from your "book of magic"."

Several, in fact, except perhaps satyrs.

"Sad."

Shall I feel sorry for you?

"The rest is just more blather......"

Of what you said? Sure/Oh, of what I said? Was it over your head?

"Oh, except that earth worms can't survive for a year in saltwater, silly child!"

At 50 I am hardly a child anymore, and earth worms can have partly survived on Ark as bird food, and also Flood was not salt water.

"@Hans-Georg Lundahl says the man who believes T. rex played on the Ark! I'll bet you think they were vegetarians as well! LOL!"

Most carnivores have vegetarian moments or at least piscivorian ones. Very tiny and young T. Rex (or other Coelurosaurians, as they are arguably all one kind and taking a smaller race would be nice to other critters), they could have been fed suitable veggies, earthworms or .... fisssssssshh (there was plenty around the Ark).

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If the global flood occurred the waters would have been definitely saline. Salt water. Not only that but earth worms drown in any kind of water. What a science ignoramus!

The bible is hardly historical! It claims Israelites in Egypt for over 400 years yet there hasn't been a single Israelite skeleton or artifact found in Egypt. Just one of the most archeologically explored place on earth. None found in the Sinai either. Over a million Israelites wandering around in a relatively small place for 40 years (roughly the life expectancy during those times!) and not one skeleton? You are aware that dry deserts are only the single best place for preserving remains, right?

So, not only is the bible not historical, but your genesis verse doesn't mention T. rex, no other verse mentions T. rex, and/or similar dinosaurs. The bible doesn't even bother to mention the New World, nor Australia, nor Antarctica. That is because a bunch of semi-literate goat herders had no way of knowing these things when they sat around and invented the stories.

No firmament either. Just a trillion galaxies with over a billion stars each on average.

Keep it coming, you heretic! LOL!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno "If the global flood occurred the waters would have been definitely saline. Salt water."

That's not what Creationists think. Seas were at worst brackwater.

"Not only that but earth worms drown in any kind of water. What a science ignoramus!"

Did I say sth about logmats? Did I say sth about earthworms on the ark as bird food supply? Or did I really forget?

"The bible is hardly historical!"

50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 4 + 31 + 24 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 15 + 28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 = 680 chapters of historic books.

I omitted books of instruction and devotion, as well as books with clearly more prophecy than history (I included Daniel, Ezra and Nehemia, though).

"It claims Israelites in Egypt for over 400 years"

In fact, the Biblical chronology I am counting on more like reckons the 430 years only had second half in Egypt, first in Canaan, before 70 persons migrated to Egypt.

Note also, they started out fairly modestly in numbers.

"yet there hasn't been a single Israelite skeleton or artifact found in Egypt."

How would you know one if you found one?

What if Israelites were buried in Egyptian style?

“You will never find a lost watch if you’re looking for it in the wrong place,” says Murray. “If we are looking in the wrong period, because of the erroneous assumptions about the Egyptian chronology of Manetho, then it’s no wonder we don’t find evidence of the civilizations of David and Solomon, or the walled cities of the Conquest, or the Exodus from Egypt. No wonder secular archaeologists stand up and confidently claim there is no evidence of an Israelite sojourn in Egypt.

“However, secular archaeologists themselves have found evidence of the land of Goshen—the region of Faqus (Gk. Phacusa, the name in Ptolemaic times, traces back to the Egyptian Pa Kesem, with the ‘m’ later dropping off; the Septuagint calls the land of the sojourn Gesem, not Goshen.) There is a strong local tradition linking this area to Goshen. Helena, the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in the 4th Century AD, asking about the land of Goshen, was pointed to this area. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak, excavating there in the mid-1980s, found evidence of Semitic occupation—including homes with artefacts and animals of Canaanite origin, not found elsewhere in Egypt, plus the way in which they buried their dead. Because of the faulty chronology, he does not associate those settlements with Israel and Egypt (‘too early’). Bietak also concluded that these Semites had participated in the building of a significant nearby Egyptian metropolis.” The Bible does not say the Hebrews built pyramids; as Murray teaches his history students, “Hollywood is not in the business of teaching true history.”

Unravelling myths about myth
Carl Wieland chats with historian and archaeologist Murray Adamthwaite
https://creation.com/unravelling-myths-about-myth

"Just one of the most archeologically explored place on earth."

Sure, and one giving lots of hints archaeology can't cover all of history, since preservation is erratic.

"None found in the Sinai either. Over a million Israelites wandering around in a relatively small place for 40 years (roughly the life expectancy during those times!) and not one skeleton?"

Life expectancy back then? Don't think so. King David a few centuries later wrote:

"The days of our years in them are threescore and ten years. But if in the strong they be fourscore years: and what is more of them is labour and sorrow. For mildness is come upon us: and we shall be corrected."
[Psalms 89:10]

In other words, if you didn't die very young, but reached adult age, a normal life expectancy was 70 to 80 years.

"You are aware that dry deserts are only the single best place for preserving remains, right?"

Not really, if scavengers come along, of which there are plenty.

The real gold mine for preserving human remains are deep burials with very air tight sealing.

"So, not only is the bible not historical,"

You forget that history is not in the main confirmed by archaeology and does not depend on such confirmation to be reliable.

When South East France was being conquered by Romans about a generation or two or three before Caesar, there were lots of battles. Nearly no battle fields from then are actually excavated.

Waterloo battle could not be proven by archaeology, by now, since bones were dug up for fertiliser mid 19th C.

"but your genesis verse doesn't mention T. rex, no other verse mentions T. rex, and/or similar dinosaurs."

It doesn't mention even elks, yet arguably elks were on the ark. It's not a zoological inventary.

"The bible doesn't even bother to mention the New World, nor Australia, nor Antarctica."

I suppose Moses knew of them, when writing Genesis, prophetically. Seeing that diverse empires were going to have access to Genesis, he arguably left it out so that these were not tempted to cross Atlantic or Indian and Pacific Oceans.

It is definitely possible they are mentioned in Apocalypse as "the wilderness" which is an accurate description of most of these places (barring Antarctica which is not inhabitable) up to pre-Columbian and pre-Tasmanian and pre-Jacobo-Cookian times.

"That is because a bunch of semi-literate goat herders had no way of knowing these things when they sat around and invented the stories."

Would you mind explaining why, with so much "invented" stories they spent so little of 680 chapters (OK, the Four Gospellers were not goatherders, not even sure the fourth was a fisherman, St John of the Gospel could have been someone else than St John of the Twelve, namely someone with Cohen connections) on real history which they could hardly help noticing was going on and happening, and at least some of it was real interesting?

With traditional author assignments, we can even say they started writing history well before Egyptians and at least about the same time as people in Mesopotamia - and went about it with more thoroughness. I'd go so far as to call Genesis the first world history of the world. At least first 11 chapters, since later ones narrow the scope to one of the nations.

"No firmament either. Just a trillion galaxies with over a billion stars each on average."

Supposing modern cosmology were in fact true, which I don't, it is at least irrelevant for historic accuracy.

"Keep it coming, you heretic! LOL!"

There is one heretic here, and it's you.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Giant Palouse earthworm would have had to get to the Ark in order to be bird food. And bird food doesn't survive. Do you even bother to note what you are writing?

Even if the entire volume of "flood water" (the amount that would have had to magically be created) were fresh the dilution is still quite saline. Fail, again. I can also demonstrate that given the resulting waters would have been quite saline (brackish even), that the flood was not global. There is a type of lake called an endorheic basin. That is any lake whose waters don't drain to the ocean. Now, that alone is not significant. However, what is significant is that some of those lakes are not saline at all. See, water evaporates, but salt doesn't. In fact the endorheic lakes would become MORE saline with evaporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorheic_basins

Elk? Dude, you still haven't provided a plausible explanation for how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Iraq/Turkey. Or the Kiwi. Your only explanation for any of it is that your "magic book" said so. Basically you are claiming the bible is true because the bible says it is true!!!! HUGE FAIL!!!

Hey, here is a news flash for you. "Scavengers" DON'T EAT BONES!!!! Or human artifacts, like clothes/jewelry/etc!!!!

No matter what the life expectancy was (archaeologists and other science professionals say it was more like 40 years, based on EVIDENCE!), the fact remains that with over a million people stumbling around in a very barren desert some would have died. Some being many! And not one burial site has been found. I didn't say they haven't found 50,000 but only 49,999 so it is false. No, I stated and it is a fact, that NOT ONE BURIAL SITE HAS BEEN FOUND.

Learn to read. Then learn how to think.

The rest is blather, especially your silly arithmetic of bible chapters being somehow (?????) meaningful!!!! By the way, your numbers are inaccurate since there are 10 (yes, TEN) different Canons with different numbers of "books".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

Never mind the Mormons! They also worship Jesus and are ''christian"! LOL!

You are quite silly, frankly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno "the Giant Palouse earthworm would have had to get to the Ark in order to be bird food. And bird food doesn't survive."

A heap of bird food worms, some certainly survive, especially if they multiply on board.

"Do you even bother to note what you are writing?"

Do you even bother to note what you are objecting to?

"Even if the entire volume of "flood water" (the amount that would have had to magically be created)"

Well, Oxygen + Hydrogen layers meet, explode in torrents (diminishing both, so now there is a distance), and there were also waters from the deep.

Magically? Not really.

"were fresh the dilution is still quite saline."

Sorry, but that presupposes that pre-Flood seas were salty. What if they weren't or what if they were only slightly brackish?

"Fail, again. I can also demonstrate that given the resulting waters would have been quite saline (brackish even), that the flood was not global. There is a type of lake called an endorheic basin. That is any lake whose waters don't drain to the ocean. Now, that alone is not significant. However, what is significant is that some of those lakes are not saline at all. See, water evaporates, but salt doesn't. In fact the endorheic lakes would become MORE saline with evaporation."

Yes, and most of these are post-Flood.

Big seas have also become more saline with exact same mechanism in post-Flood era, which is now 5000 years.

"Elk? Dude, you still haven't provided a plausible explanation for how the Inaccessible Island Rail made it to Iraq/Turkey."

Who says that is where the Ark was taking off, anyway? That's where it landed.

"Or the Kiwi. Your only explanation for any of it is that your "magic book" said so."

Where is exactly your evolutionist explanation of the kiwi? Your only explanation is that Darwin's Origin of the species says so ...

"Basically you are claiming the bible is true because the bible says it is true!!!! HUGE FAIL!!!"

Your talents in analysing logic seem temporarily clouded by your bias.

I am saying the Bible is history, because that is how audiences as far back as traceable have taken it.

Precisely as I am saying Lord of the Rings is fiction, because that is how audiences as far back as traceable have taken that.

While this doesn't prove the Bible is totally correct history, per se, there are blunders which are incredible to make, if not actual fact. And fact of Flood is strengthened by lots of other traditions too.

"Hey, here is a news flash for you. "Scavengers" DON'T EAT BONES!!!! Or human artifacts, like clothes/jewelry/etc!!!!"

Egyptian jewellry was spent in Golden Calf. Bones left to dry in the desert will disintegrate.

"No matter what the life expectancy was (archaeologists and other science professionals say it was more like 40 years, based on EVIDENCE!),"

Exactly how many graves from those times?

Does "40" refer to life expectancy at birth, which means that children dying at 5 are included in the mean?

"the fact remains that with over a million people stumbling around in a very barren desert some would have died. Some being many! And not one burial site has been found. I didn't say they haven't found 50,000 but only 49,999 so it is false. No, I stated and it is a fact, that NOT ONE BURIAL SITE HAS BEEN FOUND."

How much burial do you think people were given if they could dry? Cover with sand, that is it.

Where are the Israelite Burials From the Wilderness Wanderings?
Non-Technical - juin 18, 2009 - by Gordon Franz MA
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/06/Where-are-the-Israelite-Burials-From-the-Wilderness-Wanderings.aspx#Article

"Learn to read. Then learn how to think."

Did both already ....

"The rest is blather, especially your silly arithmetic of bible chapters being somehow (?????) meaningful!!!!"

680 chapters of Bible books mainly history is at least showing the Bible MEANS to be history, means to be taken as historical.

"By the way, your numbers are inaccurate since there are 10 (yes, TEN) different Canons with different numbers of "books"."

As a Catholic I am obviously using the 73 book canon, meaning I included chapters for Tobit, Judith and I and II Maccabees in the total.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

"Never mind the Mormons! They also worship Jesus and are ''christian"! LOL!"

They'd have a problem with Matthew 28:20. They claim God RESTORED His Church through Joseph Smith, contrary to the "all days" promise.

"You are quite silly, frankly."

I am also used to people like you taking me to be so ....

Days later

perhaps over a week, even, this is St. Thomas' Day, 21.XII.2018:

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You sure ran out of steam. What happened? LOL! Quitter/loser.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno What happened is, I answered every major point from what I can verify with a quick glance, and you answered none of mine.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Claiming the bible is factual and historical is problematic if you don't bother to show OTHER sources, ones that can be checked.

Your whole argument is "the bible is true because the bible says it is true".

Pathetic.

And you are a heretic.......

LOL!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno "Claiming the bible is factual and historical is problematic if you don't bother to show OTHER sources, ones that can be checked."

What do you mean the Bible "can't be checked"?

It's the best checkable source for any event previous to first millennium BC, except the Trojan War.

And now that Homer can be checked after Luwian and Hittite were deciphered, it seems Homer did a few things wrong which the Bible cannot be shown to have done.

For one, Homer doesn't mention once that Troy was an Arzawa Kingdom, one of them, and that there were Hittites East of them, claiming that territory. Hittites aren't mentioned once in Homer, but more than once in the Bible.

You presumably mean, you won't bother to check its claims to historicity, rather than fabulosity, which is not a question of "other sources" about same events, but a question of how it was received.

So far, I haven't seen people treat siege of Gondor as being as historical as siege of Vienna. And we are close on when Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings.

While we aren't so with the times when Moses wrote Genesis, we can check the present situation, why it doesn't look like we will ever take Lord of the Rings as history : we know the history we had, before it was written.

So, if Moses had written a novel, it's not likely he could have gotten other Israelites to accept that novel, speaking of Genesis.

When it comes to Exodus, we cannot imagine Moses writing a novel about passage of the Red Sea and getting Israelites who had not and whose parents had not and whose grandparents had not passed through the Red Sea that this was fact.

But one could so to speak half and half imagine it was a later novel about Moses ... if so, you get the same problem as with Moses as author of Genesis.

Grand miracles are not likely to get tacked onto real and non-miraculous history and novels are not likely to get taken for history.

"Your whole argument is "the bible is true because the bible says it is true"."

So far, I haven't even made the point to you "the Bible" - as a whole - "is true". Second, my point would not be "because the Bible says it is true" but because the CHURCH says it is true.

The Catholic CHURCH says the NT is its early history with its Divine Founder and soon after His Ascension.

So, apart from being heretical, you are also illogical, since you do not achieve a correct analysis of WHAT it is I am backing up with WHAT.

My points to you have been:

• the Bible hasn't been shown to be wrong on this or that or other point you brought up
• the Bible is historical in its specific type of truth claim.

I didn't even say "historically correct every time" even if I believe that, because that was not what I was arguing for.

gsundiszno

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Zero evidence for Garden of Eden/origin of man/earth/universe.

Zero evidence for Exodus.

Zero evidence for Noachian flood.

Zero corraborating evidence for Jesus.

Yeah, just those few 'details'.......

And you argued for Atlantis. Zero evidence for that as well.

You are a silly child.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The bible is manifestly wrong about the creation of the universe, the earth, life in general and mankind specifically.

The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming the Israelites were in Egypt and made an Exodus to Canaan.

The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming a global flood as per the Noah fable.

The bible is manifestly wrong in almost every single claim that can be tested, whether scientific/historic/ethical/etc.

The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming that a Jesus lived and/or was 'god in human form'.

It is all a myth developed (and often plagiarized from neighboring cultures) over some few thousand years in a mediocre region of the earth.

The sad part is the huge amounts of damage that the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) have wrought upon humanity for several thousand years. It has done some good, but only equal to many other cultures that haven't done as much damage.

And it still remains a myth belief system. FAERY TALES!

ps. Atlantis never existed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@gsundiszno
Before answering in detail, each item, I'll have to say first that you are elaborating on a point already answered without taking account of my answer.

When a text makes a historic claim that is at least some historic evidence about that claim.

When a text is taken as making a historic claim by the community it is read by, that is at least very good evidence it was meant to make a historic claim in the first place.

This doesn't mean every text is inerrant or infallible and is therefore not sufficient to argue the Bible is, but I haven't felt like arguing that one with you yet. You still have some "beginners' difficulties" to get over before perhaps coming to that one.

"Zero evidence for Garden of Eden/origin of man/earth/universe."

Except Adam and Eve recalled having been there and told this to their offspring. Except if they hadn't been the first men, their offspring would sooner or later have come across non-Adamites.

As to origin of the universe, prophecy is at least as good as your pseudo-science.

"Zero evidence for Exodus."
"The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming the Israelites were in Egypt and made an Exodus to Canaan."

Except the book of Exodus taken as historic by Israelites AND except Ipuwer papyrus, which details part of plagues of Egypt.

Yesterday I went on wiki to look for sth and found Jewish chronology counts Exodus event as having been around 1450 BC. Now, I did a wiki on 1450 BC and found 1460 BC is when a battle of Megiddo, a great Egyptian victory in Canaan, is supposed to have happened.

I actually believe Exodus was more like 1510 BC and battle of Megiddo could have been somewhat later than 1460 BC, unless it's Egyptian appropriation of Joshua's victories.

"Zero evidence for Noachian flood."
"The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming a global flood as per the Noah fable."

Except repeopled continents after Flood, giving a Flood date as 40 000 to 30 000 BP in terms of carbon dating (in case you were going to cite Australia as 65 000 BP, no, that's another method, roughly same items carbon dated give more like 21 000 BC)

"Zero corraborating evidence for Jesus."
"The bible is manifestly wrong in claiming that a Jesus lived and/or was 'god in human form'."

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and the CHURCH.

And if you claim these are not contemporary, well, there are no Roman historians (except Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) writing between AD 31 (strategically just two nyears before AD 33) and AD 96, whose writings are preserved to us.

It would seem Romans weren't too talented in overflattering writing and Emperors suppressed (or allowed supporters to suppress) critical ones.

For instance, Marcus Cluvius Rufus was consul suffetus in AD 45, twelve years after Crucifixion and Resrrection of Christ.

Now, if we had had a text of him which mentioned Jesus, that would have directly contradicted your point. We don't. So, should we concede your point?

No. The fact is, his history is only known in part, through later historians.

Citing wiki: "He was a contemporary of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, but little is known of the extent of his work except that it related to events during the reign of these emperors. Cluvius was one of the primary sources for Tacitus' Annals and Histories, Suetonius' The Lives of Twelve Caesars, Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Plutarch's Parallel Lives and probably for later historians."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Cluvius_Rufus

And once this "gap of silence" between 31 and 96 is closed with a new history (Agricola, by Tacitus), we quickly do find historians mentioning Jesus.

"And you argued for Atlantis. Zero evidence for that as well."
"ps. Atlantis never existed."

Except an Egyptian tradition, confided to Solon as we read it in Plato ... and some submarine archaeology.

"You are a silly child."

Fine tactics of intimidation, if I were receptive to it ...

"The bible is manifestly wrong about the creation of the universe, the earth, life in general and mankind specifically."

Because you have a better historiography by a better historian?

Or because you consider the reconstructions of scientists to be "manifest" truth?

"The bible is manifestly wrong in almost every single claim that can be tested, whether scientific/historic/ethical/etc."

How exactly would an Atheist test an ethical claim ... ?

And when it comes to scientific, you seem to highly regard indirect reconstructions over direct testimony.

And when it comes to history, you seem to believe the chronology of the Turin Kinglist is immaculate and a good test for Biblical chronology?

Even if it is in some kind of variance with the Abydos Kinglist.

"It is all a myth developed (and often plagiarized from neighboring cultures) over some few thousand years in a mediocre region of the earth."

How do you define myth?

If "myth" is a guess of who or what created the universe, as in Hesiod, modern science is a myth and certainly took very much less than a few thousand years to develop.

Also, if Biblical creation account were a guess rather than revelation, this accounts for very little in the 680 chapters of history in a Roman Catholic Bible. Genesis 1 and some verses in Job.

If by "myth" you include things like Iliad and Odyssey, I think you are seriously 200 years behind the times in the debates on historicity of Trojan War.

As literature goes, they would be fair comparison to some parts of the 680 chapters of history, but only little of it can be shown to be historically wrong or misleading.

It can be shown to go back to Hittite times, to not at all mention Hittites and therefore leaves the guess open some of the large scale political implications like alliances with Egypt and Ethiopia could reflect other wars conflated with Trojan war, like battle of Kanesh.

"The sad part is the huge amounts of damage that the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) have wrought upon humanity for several thousand years."

Such as?

"It has done some good, but only equal to many other cultures that haven't done as much damage."

In other words, abolishing slavery over the Middle Ages was "not good"? Because it is certain, there are NOT many cultures that have done that.

"And it still remains a myth belief system. FAERY TALES!"

As said, you need to think over how you define the word "myth". As to "faery tales" they are usually novels. There is about one Greek myth that can be called a faery tale, namely Eros and Psyche. Novels don't claim historicity. In fact, Eros and Psyche is a backdrop in Apuleius' novel The Golden Ass, just as references to Beren and Luthien are a backdrop in Lord of the Rings.

Take away Eros and Psyche, which is novel writing, and take away Hesiod's Theogony, which is a bad guess about why the universe is here, unless it's a false and diabolic revelation, what remains of what is labelled as "Greek mythology" is usually historical.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:51Grand canyon ... you seem to overdo segregation of marine invertebrates a bit.

How many of them are unknown from other places so they are considered as "their layer" bc they come between this or that layer?

In a Flood scenario, how much sorting of marine invertebrates could occur by currents overflowing the place from different directions?

Ricahrd P'Brien

You obviously need to have your meds adjusted.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ricahrd P'Brien So where you live, psychiatry is used as a Commie "inquisition"?