Nett & More (Verbal Violence Warning)

AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend) · In Answer to Robert Nett · Nett & More (Verbal Violence Warning)

Meaning, more of Robert Nett and some more of the debaters too than he. (The verbal violence is not from him.)

Kelvin Ham

Very simple way to disprove the so called great flood. Australian Aborigines and Kangaroos. Think about it!

sundiver137

IKR. The Australian Aboriginals have something like 50,000 years of unbroken culture. Kinda hard to shoehorn a global submergence event in there.

Frisbee 'n' Cookies

LOL that always makes me chuckle.

Perhaps both were brought onto the Ark two by two as well.😂

I got told this when I was in school with racist reasoning of hunter/gatherer societies to boot hence why they were regarded in the two by two fashion.

Ken King

sundiver137 Well, you see, all the continents were together before the flood. Then while under submersion the continents drifted apart. Then god made a land bridge all the way from the Middle East to the land of Africa. The koalas walked and mated the whole way to Australia! Then all the land bridges went away.

Yeah I was actually told this and similar bullshit stories when I was growing up and had questions.

The sad part is that no matter how much evidence provided, the devoted will still cling to their inerrant bible. Sad sad sad.

Carl Lennen

very poor logic there. The flood myths come from people living during the Ice Age. To people living 12 thousand years ago, the "world" was only as big as you could travel. There is massive evidence that there was a catostrophic melting of the ice sheets 12 thousand years ago due to meteor impacts that would have seemed as a world ending deluge to those inhabiting the Northern Hemisphere at that time. The sky would have exploded in fire, and then the floods would have submerged everything in sight within a few days. That would have seemed like the end of the world to any civilization around back then. As ALL civilizations from that age has their own flood myths, it is not as far out as your small minds think.

Australia happens to be in the Southern hemisphere quite close to the equator. They didnt have ice sheets, nor would they have had to deal with the sudden melt water. They would however have had to deal with the raising sea level, but it would have taken years for them to notice.

Maybe you people should educate yourselves a little more before making fun of people based on your own ignorance. You just make yourselves look like pompous, ignorant, fools. But hey, you think the religious dont think for themselves, while you eat up what you are told by your own cult leaders without any follow up. You are no better than the people you look down on.

Tim Webb

@Ken King

Get your facts straight, Ken, and you would be slightly more credible.

But as you won't read the Bible, how can you do that.

The continents did not drift apart "while under submersion."

Scripture is definitive; they drifted apart three generations after the Flood, in the time of Peleg, whose name means "separation."

Thus providing ample opportunity for the animals to get to Australia.

So maybe if you had not listened to what you were told, and had done the necessary reading involved, you would not have laboured under a delusional belief system right up to the present day.

Sad.

Ken King

Tim Webb The flood didn’t happen you fucking moron. Shut the fuck up.

Tim Webb You think the continents drifted apart in a short span of years? Continental drift moves about 1 inch per year. You’re the one who is delusional.

Jeremy Kirkpatrick

Tim King is more than delusional he is a lying brainwashed scumbag who should be sent back to the sandbox

Kevin Davis

@Carl Lennen But that's not what your inerrant bible tells you. It tells you God wiped out all of mankind except for Noah and his family. Not just the people around him, or not just those in the northern hemisphere; ALL of them, everywhere. You can't go moving the goalposts when your worldview has been thoroughly debunked.

Carl Lennen

@Kevin Davis your stupidity is hilarious. MY inerrant bible? When did I claim that?

MY worldview is being debunked? First off, you have absolutely no idea who I am, or what my worldview is. Your statement is retarded on its face. Second, you should look up the word "projection". I dont have any FAITH that you are intelligent enough to understand why I want you to look up that word, or if you will even understand the concept itself, but give it a go. Even retards need things to keep them busy.

You didnt understand one word that I wrote. This is why thinking of yourself as your own "god" is a fools errand. You aren't intelligent enough to understand how stupid you really are. AronRa loves morons like you. You're so easy to pull from one religious cult into another. Just like the Christian's you think you hate, you accept what's told to you by people you have no business trusting, and eat it up like gospel without any deeper thought.

Ho bother someone with an intelligence closer to your own. There are community centers in every city that cater to your kind. Some of the nicer ones even provide helmets. ;-)

Robert Nett

@sundiver137 They simply waited out the flood in the Dreamtime. :D

firefox5926

i try not to think about kangaroos as much as possible...

Robert Nett

@firefox5926 Yeah... they are native from Australia and are NOT poisonous... Something's up with them....

And have you ever looked in their eyes. They'll kill us in our sleep if they get the chance...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Very simple answer : misdating. Think about it. (To Kelvin Ham, before seeing rest of comments).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ken King "You think the continents drifted apart in a short span of years? Continental drift moves about 1 inch per year. You’re the one who is delusional."

Let's note in passing, someone spoke of Aborigines having 50 000 years of unbroken culture. If so, at least not of unbroken chronologically meticulous record.

The 50 000 dating is from one of the modern dating techniques, and Mungo man or Mungo woman is dated considerably more recent by C14 than by this retained thermoluminiscence date. Namely c. 20 000 BP, consistent with my tables for early post-Flood carbon 14 levels.

Now, these tables, precisely as rapid continental drift, yes, I'm back to you Ken King, would imply speed of certain processes has varied more than uniformitarians suppose.

Uniformitarian means, you suppose it hasn't varied very much. Tim Webb is simply refusing to be uniformitarian.

Ken King

Hans-Georg Lundahl So ultimately you are trying to say all these numbers are in era because of dating errors with the scientific method? Yet you are so confident about the flood and that alleged time period?

There is simply not enough water to cover all the high mountains. The earth would have had to endure over 700 ft of rain per day to cover the entire earth. Then you have issue if water dispensation.

Once that is done the entire ecosystem would have to be restored after being submersed in salt water for almost one year. The soil would need time also because of salt saturation. What would the animals eat on the ark for that time as well as afterwards? Where did Noah all the animals get fresh water? Keeping thousands upon thousands of pairs of animals alive aboard an ark for that period of time is a ridiculous and absurd fallacy.

You can keep your dating methods. No one could perform his impossible feat. Nor could a ship of that size be constructed by an uneducated peasant. It’s all mythological and not an original tale at that.

Robert Nett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl: Yes. I've heared that argument a lot.

Case in point is, that there is not a single dating-mechanism - but loads of accross multiple fields of research. Which all point to the same time-frames.

Nuclear decay is one of the most well known (I can't remember, because i talk to multiple people - but I think I linked informations to those to you). Point here is, nuclear decay doesn't get manipulated on a large scale. Sure there might be isolated situations, where the ratios differ. But by and large it's a very accurate methode due to the immense number of single events.

Think of it as rain.

If there are just a few drops - you end up with a random pattern. This might however, due to wind currents, foliage and so on, be scewed.

But if you have a large rainstorm - nearly everything get's wet to the same degree.

The same effect occurs with the trillions of single decay-events in a sample. Because of this you have a rather stable rate of nuclear decay.

However, there is more than that one methode. Think about dendrochronology which is basically counting tree-rings.

There might be slight differences due to strange weather patterns which might create the odd added or skipped ring. But by and large it evens out if you compare not only a few trees but a large sample size. A similiar methode is icecore-dating. Layers of compressed ice form like tree rings.

Then you can use geologic layers - which in itself don't give exact dates, but rather a chronological order.

Another one I just saw a documentation about is Optically Stimulated Luminiscence Dating, which basically compares energy stored in quarz crystals with the surroundings to find out when a certain rock was hit by sunlight the last time.

And that's just those I recall from the top of my head.

As said - yes. A single methode might fail. But that's the reason why a single methode is virtually never used.

Let's say, I measure the absolute age of a igneous rock arrow-head.

I can measure the nuclear decay (I gather, that's the most common methode used after estimating age by the layer the object is found).

And then I use this OSL-Dating. Both results point to a timeframe of roughly the same age. The layer also points to that age.

I can cross-compare it with other nuclear decay datings and probably with gathered knowledge about other findings from the same timeframe.

At some point it becomes rather likely that that arrowhead really is from the estimated time.

So yes - It is possible to misdate something. It happens from time to time. And there surely is the odd misdated blade or tool in a museum. But I think, you underestimate the explanatory power of combined measurment methodes and a large sample-size of findings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Nett "Case in point is, that there is not a single dating-mechanism - but loads of accross multiple fields of research. Which all point to the same time-frames."

Not for same objects, and often calibrated on each other.

"Nuclear decay is one of the most well known (I can't remember, because i talk to multiple people - but I think I linked informations to those to you). Point here is, nuclear decay doesn't get manipulated on a large scale. Sure there might be isolated situations, where the ratios differ. But by and large it's a very accurate methode due to the immense number of single events."

I am not depending on variations in decay rate. In methods going "further back" than C14, as a supplement, decay rate can be miscalculated. Libby had on lab probes of C14 calculated a decay rate of decayed to half by 5568 years, +/-30. The halflife had to be corrected on historically known probes, to being now 5730 (while error margin of +/-30 seems to stick). Now, next method is - of those in common use - 1250 million years for potassium argon.

Under 5 years, C14 can detect no difference. However, as 5/5730, so to 1250 million years would be well beyond even carbon dated history.

"Think of it as rain... you have a rather stable rate of nuclear decay."

Granted, on my behalf, but beside the point.

"However, there is more than that one methode. Think about dendrochronology which is basically counting tree-rings."

Dendro and paper documents are so to speak both lignine based. Both also get lots less sure as you count backwards.

"There might be slight differences due to strange weather patterns which might create the odd added or skipped ring. But by and large it evens out if you compare not only a few trees but a large sample size."

The oldest now or recently living is from after Flood, for Martyrologium romanum.

When it comes to dating older tree, the overlaps get fewer and fewer, and even back 2000 year ago, there is a bottleneck, with overlaps I saw on a graph seeming a bit too loose.

However, in one Indian Pueblo from Arizona, local dendro and C14 confirmed each other, but that is only last pre-Columbian centuries. Lots of trees from same microclimate were involved and lots of it was still preserved, these last 6 - 700 years.

"A similiar methode is icecore-dating. Layers of compressed ice form like tree rings."

That's a point Creationists disagree on. One usually says on our part, haven't done much proper work myself, that ice layers form at each change of temperature, i e much faster than you presume.

"Then you can use geologic layers - which in itself don't give exact dates, but rather a chronological order."

Is your memory bad? I just refuted that on the other thread. If you have a shark layer "from Jurassic" over a trilibite layer "from Palaeozoic", that can be because the pre-Flood environment there was sea. There are currently more than one layer of sea creatures living over each other.

As to land layers, no, you don't find Ceratopsian layers above Dimetrodontic ones. I went through an extensive list of fossil Lagerstätten. In land creatures, as land environments before the Flood were "one-storied" in the respect I talk about, you find one fossil bearing layer, though, geologically there is more than one layer, but the other ones are lithic.

"Another one I just saw a documentation about is Optically Stimulated Luminiscence Dating, which basically compares energy stored in quarz crystals with the surroundings to find out when a certain rock was hit by sunlight the last time."

Calibrated by C14.

"And that's just those I recall from the top of my head."

Fine.

"As said - yes. A single methode might fail. But that's the reason why a single methode is virtually never used."

I severely doubt there are several independent methods for each find. Layers take precedence over radioactive methods when in conflict, and otherwise, radioactive methods other than C14 have been, selectively, used to boost the overall age of a "chronological order" already thought out.

"Let's say, I measure the absolute age of a igneous rock arrow-head."

Fine. I don't thin so many arrow heads are from ex-lava tuff, but ok.

"I can measure the nuclear decay (I gather, that's the most common methode used after estimating age by the layer the object is found)."

You gather, i e you haven't done it. You are not illustrating what the method actually is, but what it ought to be to work well, and what you somewhat naively think it to be.

"And then I use this OSL-Dating. Both results point to a timeframe of roughly the same age. The layer also points to that age."

I looked it up.

//Optically-Stimulated Luminescence is a late Quaternary dating technique used to date the last time quartz sediment was exposed to light.//

https://www.usu.edu/geo/luminlab/whatis.html

It involves Gy [Giga-years], according to diagram. Both OSL and igneous rock typical Ka-Ar dating are beyond the time range currently considered as involving human artefacts. So, if you date an arrowhead by these two methods, you have just proven man was around millions of years ago - and I don't mean Australopithecus. I think you were trying to illustrate the point rhetorically, without making your example realistic. Because you don't know the subject well enough to do so.

"I can cross-compare it with other nuclear decay datings"

Not C14 in the time range Ka-Ar is about. You said the arrowhead was igneous rock.

Also, OSL would tell since when it was buried, while Ka-Ar would tell when the rock formed as lava, which could theoretically be millions of years earlier (on your non-Biblical view). So, the cross dating you propose serves no purpose.

"and probably with gathered knowledge about other findings from the same timeframe."

Robert, sei so nett, admit you personally can't.

"At some point it becomes rather likely that that arrowhead really is from the estimated time."

The OSL and Ka-Ar dated one is from estimated date between St Bartholomew's day 2019 and the next day, being today, Sunday 25.VIII. Because it is from your head, and not with good fact checking before you invented the example.

"So yes - It is possible to misdate something. It happens from time to time. And there surely is the odd misdated blade or tool in a museum. But I think, you underestimate the explanatory power of combined measurment methodes and a large sample-size of findings."

I think you underestimated the detailed research, thought and work (including mathematical calculations) which went into my critique of current dating customs of the non-amourous type.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ken King "So ultimately you are trying to say all these numbers are in era because of dating errors with the scientific method?"

Mungo man, a case in point with Australia, has carbon dates c. 20 000 BP (younger or older depending on tissue type). This dating was discarded in favour of a thermoluminiscence date of 40 000 BP.

That is not what I call "in era".

I'd say thermoluminiscence is somewhat erratically calibrated after carbon, but if dates had been carbon dates, Mungo man would have been late pre-Flood. With the actual carbon dates, he is from Noah's post-Flood lifetime, the 350 years between 2957 and 2607 BC, not too near either end.

"Yet you are so confident about the flood and that alleged time period?"

All scientific methods ultimately depend on history. This is why a historical, rather than scientific, method inspires my confidence.

"There is simply not enough water to cover all the high mountains. The earth would have had to endure over 700 ft of rain per day to cover the entire earth. Then you have issue if water dispensation."

If Mount Everest, Mont Blanc, Andes, Alps are all higher than pre-Flood mountains, waters in Oceans have plento of place for gathering the water from the Flood.

"Once that is done the entire ecosystem would have to be restored after being submersed in salt water for almost one year."

Except sea water wasn't very salty before the Flood or up to it. Perhaps not salty at all.

"The soil would need time also because of salt saturation."

Dito, but point half granted, as to our crops, most places, for the other reason of moisture remaining (except where the miraculous strong wind had dried it out).

"What would the animals eat on the ark for that time as well as afterwards?"

Fish, carcasses, dead but not rotted plants, rotted plants, new sown plants.

"Where did Noah all the animals get fresh water?"

See previous comment on pre-Flood sea water.

"Keeping thousands upon thousands of pairs of animals alive aboard an ark for that period of time is a ridiculous and absurd fallacy."

Woodmorappe and others have refuted the argument by feasability studies. They involve baraminology, as in all hedgehog species from same couple on the Ark, as with hares and rabbits from same couple, and some go further even into sheep and goats having common ancestry with cows.

"You can keep your dating methods."

As far as you are concerned. Others may ask differently.

"No one could perform his impossible feat."

Except it isn't.

"Nor could a ship of that size be constructed by an uneducated peasant."

Where do you get Noah's socio-economic status and education level from? "Uneducated peasant" is not from the Genesis account.

"It’s all mythological"

Which reminds me about all the confirmations by Flood stories from the rest of the world.

Yes, I do believe parts of Pagan mythologies. You see, there is the category "god stories" about what gods did up to creating mankind as we know it (like Zeus dethroning Kronos), which I don't believe in. There is also the category "heroic legend" about what diverse heros, i e men, did, usually with human observers. Greek version kind of stretches between the two, and is garbled in comparison to Bible, but still points to it (and to two more Biblical events, three angels as guests of barren Abraham and Sarah, two of them saving Lot and his daughters from Sodom, and in the latter case, someone thinking there was no sane way of repopulating the world).

"and not an original tale at that."

If you mean clay tablets with Akkadian or Sumerian versions of the story have been found, not carbon dated themselves, but compared to carbon dated material, 1800 BC or so, sure, but I think this carbon date is referring to a real date much closer to Moses' birth in 1590 BC.

It can be there are some ones older than Moses, in that case Moses decided to contradict their errors (as Egyptian prince, he would have had access to some Babylonic material, due to diplomatic correspondence).

Robert Nett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok, I freely admit, that I have only layman experience in this. I rely on the work of scientists. And I also admit, that my examples are more meant to illustrate the points I am making, rather than to scientifically explain those relationships, as it is out of the reach of my direct knowledge.

That said, I still have done my work in gathering the information from sources I deem believable for various reasons.

So back to topic.

About geological layers: I don't see where you 'refuted' anything. Sure there are - due to tectonics - layers above other layers. However science knows about this. I mean yes, we have billions of year old limestone literally a stone's throw away from where i live in bavaria. But we know, that this layers where pushed upwards. There are explanations for those findings.

About trees and tree ages. The oldest known tree: You are right - as I looked up, the oldest known non-clonal tree is roughly 4800 years old and might fall in the after-flood era.

However, you ignore clonal trees in your argument. There are several known organisms predating the oldest single tree. Pandu as the oldest clonal tree dated at least 80.000 years - which not only predates the flood, but the creation of the world. Even if you take a margin of error of 50% the organism still would be four times older than the earth.

You can make the argument, that the single trees growing from the root system are younger than the flood. However, it's hard to believe that the roots would survive a flood event as described in the bible.

And to get another argument out: those trees were cross-compared by different methodes.

About the accuracy of treering-dating and ice-core dating.

There is a known margin of error, that's correct. However, Ice-cores reach back tens of thousands of years depending on how deep you drill. And those who work in the field aren't idiot's either. They also know about those error-margin factoring it in.

Further - there are more methodes of 'counting' year-rings. For example coral reefs also build layers depending on regular changes in light and temparature.

However corals are also relatively fragile.

Oldest living coral also date back 4000 years (which admittedly brings them in the range of 'after the flood' However those living corals sitting on their dead ancestors - tens of thousands of years of limestone in uninterrupted layers. Any flood-event would have destroyed those corals living on the limestone.

Let my try to make a point: Everything we can observe and test with our methodes today, coming from a neutral standpoint, in evey field of science (that deals with age of things that is), point to an earth billions of years old. Further there still is nothing indicating a global flood event. All you can do is arguing 'but what when everyone is wrong?' and simply asserting that everyone in science is too stupid to see their glaring errors.

So let me ask a question: If creation was real, if earth really was roughly 6000 years old, if there was a global flood. Why then hiding all of those truths and let all evidence suggest otherwise? What kind of test should that be? What should this achieve. Why would God deveive us?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Nett "About geological layers: I don't see where you 'refuted' anything. Sure there are - due to tectonics - layers above other layers. However science knows about this."

Read what I wrote again. In what I presume to be pre-Flood sea biotopes, you do have diverse fossil bearing layers. In what I presume to be pre-Flood land biotopes, you have (excluding shell fish from limestone, which came with Flood), only one single fossil bearing layer (land vertebrate fossils), which is odd if there were several successive biotopes on same tectonic coordinates.

"I mean yes, we have billions of year old limestone literally a stone's throw away from where i live in bavaria. But we know, that this layers where pushed upwards. There are explanations for those findings."

I am not asking for your explanation of the finding, but if the limestone contains land biota from more than one period. If you said "billions of years" arguably not, those layers tend to mean sea biota.

"About trees and tree ages. The oldest known tree: You are right - as I looked up, the oldest known non-clonal tree is roughly 4800 years old and might fall in the after-flood era."

2019
2957
4976 years is a wider ranger than 4800.

"However, you ignore clonal trees in your argument. There are several known organisms predating the oldest single tree. Pandu as the oldest clonal tree dated at least 80.000 years - which not only predates the flood, but the creation of the world. Even if you take a margin of error of 50% the organism still would be four times older than the earth."

That dating is not by tree ring counting, and I presume C14 is involved some place. When a method is faulty, the margin error is not too important.

"You can make the argument, that the single trees growing from the root system are younger than the flood. However, it's hard to believe that the roots would survive a flood event as described in the bible."

Not agreeing, if it had destroyed all plant life to the roots, there would have been no life after Flood.

And to get another argument out: those trees were cross-compared by different methodes.

"About the accuracy of treering-dating and ice-core dating."

As if they were comparable ...

"There is a known margin of error, that's correct. However, Ice-cores reach back tens of thousands of years depending on how deep you drill. And those who work in the field aren't idiot's either. They also know about those error-margin factoring it in."

They simply took the wrong thing as indicating error margins.

"Further - there are more methodes of 'counting' year-rings. For example coral reefs also build layers depending on regular changes in light and temparature."

Yes.

"However corals are also relatively fragile.

"Oldest living coral also date back 4000 years (which admittedly brings them in the range of 'after the flood' However those living corals sitting on their dead ancestors - tens of thousands of years of limestone in uninterrupted layers. Any flood-event would have destroyed those corals living on the limestone."

The limestone / dead corals being from Flood may have been brought there from corals elsewhere.

"Let my try to make a point: Everything we can observe and test with our methodes today, coming from a neutral standpoint, in evey field of science (that deals with age of things that is), point to an earth billions of years old."

Uniformitarian is not neutral.

"Further there still is nothing indicating a global flood event. All you can do is arguing 'but what when everyone is wrong?' and simply asserting that everyone in science is too stupid to see their glaring errors."

Or too ideological to not support them.

"So let me ask a question: If creation was real, if earth really was roughly 6000 years old, if there was a global flood. Why then hiding all of those truths and let all evidence suggest otherwise? What kind of test should that be? What should this achieve. Why would God deveive us?"

I don't believe in that case about the evidence, and I don't believe those few scientists you rely on are representative of all millions or billions of men who have lived on earth, many of whom had the good sense to rely on tradition, and thereby getting the Flood from ancestral stories, whether Christian or Pagan.

Robert Nett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Those few scientists also number in the millions over the last centuries. And the findings of those few scientist produce things and testable results

You might believe in oral or written tradition of billions of people - but, just for an example - how many people they cured from leper - 'knowing' that bad air, sin or demons were the cause for those ailmenst? - compared to scientists, who found out the reason - the bacterium that cause leper.

The radio carbon - or other nuclear dating methodes you so readily dismiss are part of nuclear physics on which a lot of real world applications are based.

How can they even work, when the basis of all that is completely wrong?

How can we see with radio-telescopes for 14.7 billion lightyears?

So what - all what we know and can do is barely an illusion based on lies and deception?

But let me ask another question, because you make me curious. What is your exact believe, and what tradition do you follow? Do you consider yourself a Christian? Or a Deist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Nett "@Hans-Georg Lundahl Those few scientists also number in the millions over the last centuries. And the findings of those few scientist produce things and testable results"

No, on average the scientist producing these results are not engaged in taking ice cores in a uniformitarian sense.

"You might believe in oral or written tradition of billions of people - but, just for an example - how many people they cured from leper - 'knowing' that bad air, sin or demons were the cause for those ailmenst? - compared to scientists, who found out the reason - the bacterium that cause leper."

Some of the measures applying to bad air also apply to bacteria.

In that sense, the test why I believe the bacterium is not the success, thought that helps, but the views in microscopes.

We have no microscope views on millions of years.

"The radio carbon - or other nuclear dating methodes you so readily dismiss are part of nuclear physics on which a lot of real world applications are based."

I have not disputed the BASIS (in physics) for Carbon dating. In fact, I have not even disputed the basics of Ka-Ar. What I have disputed is, the knowledge of how much of a parent isotope there was. It is either somewhat dishonest, or simply negligent of you to argue here as if I were disputing the decay rates.

"How can they even work, when the basis of all that is completely wrong?"

Never said it was.

"How can we see with radio-telescopes for 14.7 billion lightyears?"

Those distance "measures" also being wrong - and also not comparable to seeing a bacterium in a microscope.

"So what - all what we know and can do is barely an illusion based on lies and deception?"

It seems you are so eager to find a point of arguing against that you prefer neglecting what I actually said.

"But let me ask another question, because you make me curious. What is your exact believe, and what tradition do you follow? Do you consider yourself a Christian? Or a Deist?"

Roman Catholic, not Vatican II accepting. Formerly FSSPX (Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X auf Deutsch), now adherent of Pope Michael, a former Seminarian of theirs (who was not ordained with them, but 21 years after his election).

Robert Nett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok thanks for the clarification.

And I apologise, if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your points on carbon dating.

After reading up on the topic I somewhat agree with you. Obviously there are discrepancies in espcially C14-measurment, as it is used to determine the age of organic materials, that absorbed carbon during their lifetime and stopped to do so after their demise.

Science doesn't by the way deny it's inaccuracy.

It's still pretty accurate in a few thousand year range. and used to cross-compare findings with other methodes. However dating the flood back to roughly 5000 years the method is clearly on the lower end of it's accuracy.

You also mention Potassium-Argon (if I've read correctly, please let me know if I got it wrong).

I also learned after reading up on the topic, that creationists go especially after C14 - because it's somewhat unreliable.

However for geological dating, there are way more methodes than just Potassium-Argon.

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

Wikipedia lists 9 specific methods explained in text plus 11 or so further ones that are used.

So in short, while the C14 methode is used mainly in archeology - nowadays more to complement other dating methodes, there are still lot's of way more accurate ways to determine longer timeframes.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2901

I think it's inaccurate to apply the inherent inaccuracy of C14 dating to other radiometric dating methods as those don't deal with gasses that are constantly exposed to ionising radiation.

So there may be a less accurate methode for short term - however science can date rocks due to the decay of their inherent minerals in the million and billion years timeframe.

I really like to hear your thoughts on that one - but we also shouldn't forget the other points - about several cultures that lived right through the flood and the idea of water forming above the atmosphere to rain down on earth.

And just to clarify further - Roman Catholic, former member of the (coloqially known as) Pius-Bruderschaft. Now an adherent of Pope Michael - I gather you don't refer to the orthodox popes of Alexandria of the same name but the person David Bawden? (Just read it up)

Anyways - you refered in your argumentation earlier to generations of people believing in the flood Christian and Pagan alike. Could you elaborate on this topic, after we consider the part about radiometric dating done? (I just don't want to loose this point, because it's also really interesting and I think I can contribute maybe some points on it).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

​@Robert Nett I consider C14 way more reliable than Potassium Argon.

While there are other methods than Potassium Argon for long term, it's the most widely used, since it's in theory useful wherever there was a lava flow.

However, the problem with Potassium Argon is, what if Argon from the air got trapped?

On a Creationist view, this is extremely likely for the time of the Flood. Plenty of water, plenty of cooling for the lava to solidify quickly = plenty of argon trapped.

One must not imagine all the nine methods are always available, and C14 and Potassium Argon are the two most widely available ones.

For C14, I don't think C14 content in atmosphere can jump from 1.4 to 100 pmC in a moment, I have felt a need to take detailed thought about how C14 content in atmosphere rose, and it seems the fastest C14 production was during Babel, unless it's just the breakthrough in atmosphere and wood material (charcoal) after it was produced faster than normal during Young Dryas, right before. Which is likelier. 10 or 11 times present rate of atmospheric production of C14.

"And just to clarify further - Roman Catholic, former member of the (coloqially known as) Pius-Bruderschaft. Now an adherent of Pope Michael - I gather you don't refer to the orthodox popes of Alexandria of the same name but the person David Bawden? (Just read it up)"

FB still requires him to use the civil name, David Bawden. Last Pope of Alexandria I heard of was Shenuda III. Wait, not only has he died, but his successor among Coptic Popes perhaps has a Greek Orthodox rival? Is his name Michael?

@Robert Nett I had to post previous in haste, before answering all, here is some more:

"So there may be a less accurate methode for short term - however science can date rocks due to the decay of their inherent minerals in the million and billion years timeframe."

Most often lava, with Potassium Argon, as previously mentioned.

"I really like to hear your thoughts on that one - but we also shouldn't forget the other points - about several cultures that lived right through the flood"

As per carbon dates for them.Yes, Egypt has first dynasty carbon dated 3200 BC, a date before the Flood, but if the carbon level had just risen to c. 90 pmC back then, this is a misdating by more than 1000 years.

As to China, no problem for LXX dates (though earliest emperors would be during Noah's lifetime, and the title would have been retroactively applied, also a question on what the real biology of Fu Xi was, similar to Cecrops, real snake rear seems unlikely).

As to India, Kali Yuga starts before Roman Martyrology places Flood, when Krishna died. However, this is solved if Krishna is a pre-Flood hero. They do not have a continuous historic chronology for all of Kali Yuga, they just mention that it is so and so many years since Krishna died. I think Indian culture formed in reaction to Babel project and Nimrod's moral failures, in nostalgia for pre-Flood events of Mahabharata and post-Flood events of Ramayana (probably before Babel, that is under Palaeolithic or Mesolithic).

"and the idea of water forming above the atmosphere to rain down on earth."

• 1) We still have Hydrogen gas fairly high up, I just think it's thinner now than then (and was even thicker up to day 4, when God used part of it to create stars, including sun). Hydrogen is a transparent gas, so if air doesn't block sunlight, neither should Hydrogen.
• 2) I am not saying this accounts for all of the waters, but for the verse Genesis 7:11 last words, while words just previous refer to subterranean waters, probably contained in some kind of bubbles that burst through intense pressure during Flood, and which now is in the Oceans (and remember, post-Flood Oceans differ in two ways from pre-Flood seas, namely depth, to contain Flood water, and saltiness).

"Anyways - you refered in your argumentation earlier to generations of people believing in the flood Christian and Pagan alike. Could you elaborate on this topic, after we consider the part about radiometric dating"

Indians first tried to deny Flood, and placed Ramayana earlier than Mahabharata to get a long continuous history, but later on they saw they could't suppress the news, so placed a Flood with the whale Matchas earlier even than Ramayana (than they had placed it).

Chinese drowned the memory of the Flood in the memory of a flooding, where an emperor was useful. Altaians remembered how depth was measured of Flood waters, though they had forgotten hills (the method they used, ropes of known depth, or a waterline of the Ark, would be the same used by Noah in real life), Babylonians bungled divine motive, who was involved in condemning and who in saving (dividing that up between Enlil and Enki), and also bungled shape of Ark. Andines considered a sibling pair climbing Andes as equivalent of what we call "people aboard the Ark".

Norse myth places creation of man after Flood, but correctly has unrighteous giants before it and as part of why it was provoked. It also places creation of earth after the Flood, an exaggeration of the sentiment in 2 Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." meaning, in some sense we live in a new post-Flood world.

Greek myth has three Biblical stories mingled : Flood, Abraham and Sarah being barren, Lot and family being saved from Sodom. Probably wanted to suppress the news about Sodom, so tacked parts of that story onto their previous memories from Flood. Even later they must have had some contact with Holy Land, Agamemnon praying to the sun god argues he had heard about Joshua 10 event (and the Greek story of Atreus and Thyestes is a later Greek rationalisation of how the Sun behaved that day, when it was no longer probable to consider Agamemnon an equal of Joshua and thereby Joshua as one of Agamemnon, once Agamemnon's prayer before Troy had failed).

Robert Nett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

we know that there are at the moment about 10 trillion galaxies. even if they just had 10% of the size of our own (that's absolutely generaous, as the milky way is rather average). Our galaxy has - between 100 and 200 billion solar masses in stars + a little excess for planets

The bare assumption that all of that H2 was once - 6000 years ago - concentrated above our planet is astounding. And defys everything we know about physics.

From the gravitational forces to the assumed speed this masses would need to travel.

And yes - there are traces of H2 above atmosphere, as there are traces of matter everywhere in the universe (probably more concentrated inside of solar systems).

That's simply matter dispersed throughout the universe.

And even if hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere was the reason for the flood rains - there is still a number of problems you didn't adress:

Mainly the exotermic reaction when hydrogen and oxygen form water and the friction heat due to water entering the atmosphere. Which both would be enough to literally boil earth. Or more accurate probably incinerate the atmosphere and make earth a quite bright and very short-lived star.

(Again - even if we somehow survived the gravitational effects of a good chunk of universal matter concentrated in our direct vacinity.)

Even if you solve this issue somehow, there are more problems on the horizon. Flood legends in general display a rather 'tame' image of floods. Water levels rise to the highest buildings or the crowns of local trees. Something we observe in 'modern' floods all over the planet.

But a global flood, which would cover everything - must exceed our highest mountains. Which would make it over 7 kilometers high over the tops of the Himalaya. Mount everest grows roughly 2 and a half inch every year - so 5000 years back we would have 12500 inches - roughly 1000 foot or something around 350 meters. So back then it would have been 7700 meters above sea level.

Now about the different cultures and flood legends: It's no secret, that every coastal culture has flood legends. Simply for the fact that floodings happen. And people try to get an answer how they happen. As they don't know about tectonics, tsunamis - geology in action frankly - they make up other explanations - like Gods wrath.

However flood-legends are far less common in inner land cultures. There is no Nepalese flood legend.

Also those flood legends differ wildly in their form. It's boats, trees, gigantic bowls and what not in which people survive. Sometimes alone, sometimes in groups, with or without animals aboard.

Then - not all those flood myths share the same date, or even the same timeframe. They are scattered throughout recorded history and way before that.

You might have heard the flood myth from the Epos of Gilgamesh - which was written some 600 years before the biblical flood for an example.

Your point about mingled biblical stories in other legends: Did you ever consider, that this might be the other way around? That biblical accounts stem from earlier legends?

So you get in a bit of a tight place if you on one hand rate the accounts of ancient tribes higher than what science can proof to be true today - but on the other hand disrgard those ancient accounts.

And if every living person today stems from a group of 8 men (+8 women I guess, it would be rather arkward otherwise).

Why are there differences in the how, why and when those flood has happened?

Why should the vast majority of people - all decends of Noah - lie so boldly? Especially if you count them as more believable than modern science.

By the way - as we talk on one of 8 videos about disproving the flood myth - I gather you've seen the other 7 videos?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"we know that there are at the moment about 10 trillion galaxies. even if they just had 10% of the size of our own (that's absolutely generaous, as the milky way is rather average). Our galaxy has - between 100 and 200 billion solar masses in stars + a little excess for planets"

No, we do not know this. Solar masses for non-sun stars are calculated by what "we" pretend to "know" about distances to "near" stars, on the parallel of which "far" stars are modelled.

"The bare assumption that all of that H2 was once - 6000 years ago - concentrated above our planet is astounding. And defys everything we know about physics."

I haven't detailed out how far up. Btw, I'd go with 7200 years ago.I take these words as implying electrolysis:

[6] And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.

Some of the produced Oxygen is also used in stars, as the O, N, C cycle, some was immediately left as atmosphere and some remains so after "opening of flood gates" as per my interpretation.

"From the gravitational forces to the assumed speed this masses would need to travel."

Namely? Remember, I believe in a much smaller cosmos.

"And yes - there are traces of H2 above atmosphere, as there are traces of matter everywhere in the universe (probably more concentrated inside of solar systems)."

Hmm ... the most common molecule is H2, the second most common one is H2O.

"That's simply matter dispersed throughout the universe."

Most of which would, on what I take as Moses' terminological precision, be termed "water" (both H2O and Hydrogen, confer both German, Hebrew and the Greek English uses as a loan word calling it water stuff).

"And even if hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere was the reason for the flood rains - there is still a number of problems you didn't adress:"

I am adressing the ones you name as they come.

"Mainly the exotermic reaction when hydrogen and oxygen form water and the friction heat due to water entering the atmosphere. Which both would be enough to literally boil earth. Or more accurate probably incinerate the atmosphere and make earth a quite bright and very short-lived star."

I think I already dealt with this one in comments on "Meterology refutes the Flood".

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/01/on-flood-with-aronra-referring-to.html

As I recall, AronRa admits there would be needed much less rain if mountains were less high, but claims to consider that as "un-Biblical". Also, there would be needed less rain, if parts came from subterranean waters.

"(Again - even if we somehow survived the gravitational effects of a good chunk of universal matter concentrated in our direct vacinity.)"

Depends on how much matter there is.

"Even if you solve this issue somehow, there are more problems on the horizon. Flood legends in general display a rather 'tame' image of floods. Water levels rise to the highest buildings or the crowns of local trees. Something we observe in 'modern' floods all over the planet."

They display covering highest known place, except where Andes take the place of the Ark.

"But a global flood, which would cover everything - must exceed our highest mountains. Which would make it over 7 kilometers high over the tops of the Himalaya. Mount everest grows roughly 2 and a half inch every year - so 5000 years back we would have 12500 inches - roughly 1000 foot or something around 350 meters. So back then it would have been 7700 meters above sea level."

You are extrapolating past rate of its rise from the present rate, Uniformitarianism, this we Creationists reject.

"Now about the different cultures and flood legends: It's no secret, that every coastal culture has flood legends. Simply for the fact that floodings happen. And people try to get an answer how they happen. As they don't know about tectonics, tsunamis - geology in action frankly - they make up other explanations - like Gods wrath."

• 1) Is Altaic culture coastal?
• 2) If a coast culture gets flooded (and some did so during Younger Dryas, as water levels had been lower during Ica age, when post-Flood cangaroos made it to Down Under), survivors would need to go to places where others had survived. These do not form legends of universal floods. Unsurprisingly, Krishna predicted a local flooding after his death (irl, he may have predicted the Flood of Noah), and not the flood Hindus place millennia before his life.

"However flood-legends are far less common in inner land cultures. There is no Nepalese flood legend."

Nepalese are Hindus, I think, and use the Hindu flood legend. I already mentioned Altaic Flood legend.

"Also those flood legends differ wildly in their form. It's boats, trees, gigantic bowls and what not in which people survive. Sometimes alone, sometimes in groups, with or without animals aboard."

Yes, I mentioned Babylonian coracle and Andine Andes qua Ark versions.

"Then - not all those flood myths share the same date, or even the same timeframe. They are scattered throughout recorded history and way before that."

So? Chronology is one of the points where tradition gets garbled easiest, and if we aren't used to it getting garbled, it is bc we enjoy an extremely good counterweight : a habit (stemming from Genesis among Hebrews, Livy among Romans) of grasping history as a sequence of events we are supposed to keep recording, as well as the dating AD.

"You might have heard the flood myth from the Epos of Gilgamesh - which was written some 600 years before the biblical flood for an example."

No, it was not. You do not have any tablet from Babylonian places either in Sumerian or Akkadic that is from

2957
+600
3557

3557 BC and is continuous readable narrative. First, tablets which are indirectly (from directly or indirectly associated organic material) carbon dated back then are from later on, c. 1950 BC, second, they are only "Proto-Literate" meaning, while they have writing, they do not have a full palette of uses for writing, like no narrative.

"Your point about mingled biblical stories in other legends: Did you ever consider, that this might be the other way around? That biblical accounts stem from earlier legends?"

My solution is not that any non-Hebrew copied the Hebrews on memories that they had themselves from Flood, but that common memory of events was copied better or worse fidelity separately. In the case of Greek Flood myth, yes, I think Greeks had contact with Hebrews, and I think Greeks would have had more motives to smooth out the story of Sodom, because it contains more actors, is more confusing, and condemning a practise they were starting to condone, than Hebrews would have had to take Greek Flood stories and reuse them for a story of another Doom.

And before you say Ebla tablet's don't mention Sodom, well, Sodom was destroyed c. 1915 BC, real chronology, and Ebla archives start off 2400 BC carbon chronology, which is later than 2600 BC, in carbon, since that is c. 1700 BC (Joseph = Imhotep, his pharao is Djoser, carbon dated to 2600 BC), and so in Eblaite archivists' eyes, Sodom would have been highly uninteresting "ancient history".

"So you get in a bit of a tight place if you on one hand rate the accounts of ancient tribes higher than what science can proof to be true today - but on the other hand disrgard those ancient accounts."

I actually don't think science can ever prove history, it is only history that can prove science. How does anyone prove anything about aether, either its non-existence pproved from moving earth or it's existence proving geocentrism, if one doesn't acknowledge the Michelson Morely experiments happened?

"And if every living person today stems from a group of 8 men (+8 women I guess, it would be rather arkward otherwise)."

Noah + wife = one man and one woman.
Their sons = three men, four men in total.
Their wives = three women, four women in total.

You haven't even bothered to read the account.

"Why are there differences in the how, why and when those flood has happened?"

Partly because daughters in law had diverse relations to Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage (which I take to be pre-Flood races), partly bc of genetic drift, mutations, gene duplications, gene deletions, natural and cultural selection that happened since back then.

"Why should the vast majority of people - all decends of Noah - lie so boldly?"

Have you ever seen certain societies where individuals are supposed to be de facto dishonest, without reproach of dishonesty lying on them, if the lie is required by the society? Well, if Babylonians started lying about Enlil and Enki, there are two factors limiting access to original story : those still believing it would be exiled to Hebrews, those not exiled to Hebrews would be under that kind of social pressure. Dito for suppressing the separate Sodom account, which was obviously eased by someone claiming "no, the concundrum about re-peopling the earth was after the Flood" and this perhaps as late as Hesiod including this version in a vision from Nine Muses, whether he really was visited by supernatural beings or only pretended.

"Especially if you count them as more believable than modern science."

I don't count "modern science" as one whole, and I count history as opposed to reconstruction as most believable about historic events. Modern medicine is more believable about lepra than a voodoo doctor's explanation, if they used to have one, but older events recorded by older peoples usually don't require "lepra is Hansen's bacterium" to be believable.

"By the way - as we talk on one of 8 videos about disproving the flood myth - I gather you've seen the other 7 videos?"

Some yes, I just linked to one. Or to my refutation, which includes link to it.