I did find an interesting thing, though. Giants. No, no, no, not the football team from New York. We first here about giants in the ancient lands in Genesis:
So not only were the angels able to reproduce (which blasts the fundie theory I grew up with that angels were neither male nor female but asexual [much like Jesus said in Mark 12:25: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.]), but it means the angels are perv's having interspecies sex. But whatever. When angels and women get together, you get giants: specifically, Nephilim.
Genesis 6:1-4: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
And I was like, Oh. Okay. Angel + Fair-looking Human Woman = Giant. Sure. Whatever. This passage is right before the whole "All men are wicked. They be dissin' me hard! Noah, build a yacht with some stalls." And we all know the story: Noah builds a boat, takes two of most creatures, seven of others, and his wife, his three sons, and their wives. That's it. And men and women are crying as supposedly it rains for the first time ever on Earth (according to what I heard growing up... I have no idea where they get this from...), and then the bible says:
Yep. Pretty much everything (excepting, of course, water-dwelling creatures... go figure...) So one would suppose this gets rid of the giants from before, right? The bastardized creatures made from illicit inter-species sex, right? Hmm... No, you would be wrong. Apparently giants are either tall enough to stand on the highest mountains which were also supposedly underwater (Gen 7:19-20: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.), or giants came with duck-shaped floaties, and perhaps they ate all the deep-sea dinosaurs to stay alive while floating on the water for forty days and nights... I imagine giants have big appetites, don't you?
Gen. 7:23: And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
So, anyways, supposedly all the giants died. But then, later, as Moses was sending spies into the promised land to see if the people of Israel really could just waltz in and claim it as their god said they could, the spies came back saying, "Uh-huh, no way!" Why? Giants. Up by 7 in the final quarter:
Now, you may be saying, Maybe these are different giants? Maybe gods angels got it on with some of Noah's granddaughters and a new breed was sprung up. Hmm, perhaps. So let's take a look at the word "giant," shall we?
Num 13:32-33:And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, [is] a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it [are] men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Giant has two different terms in the old testament: The earlier, Nephilim (the word used in both in our quoted passages in Genesis and Numbers), and Rephaim, who made their first appearance in Gen 14:5 (And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that [were] with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,), but it seems like they were taken care of here, through one of OT god's favorite forms of killing: Smiting. God did a lot of smoting and smiting back in the day, but I'll let that one go for now as well... Needless to say, the Rephaim make a few appearances later as well! (Perhaps they had floaties too?; but, wait, they appear after the flood.) In fact, for the rest of the time the Israelites are trying to occupy their land, all different types of giants from differing parts of the promised land are called Rephaim. Nephilim is never used again. How many types of Rephaim are there?
- Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. (Anak and Anakim are the same tribe, and the word Nephilim is used earlier for these same giants that dwelt in Caanan, the so-called promised land)
- Deu 2:19b-20 for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon [any] possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot [for] a possession. (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; (Strong's says this may be the same people as the Anak, but the Thayer's/Grimm Hebrew lexicon states that these giants were extinct before the time of Moses...)
- Deu 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, [being] the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. (these giants inhabited northern Jordan, just east of Canaan...)
- Jos 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou [be] a great people, [then] get thee up to the wood [country], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. (Southern Canaan...)
Now, where does that leave us, really? Well, either the so-called sons of god got busy with Noah's granddaughters, or the giants survived the flood to begin with. Which is more plausible? The bible never again mentions angels and humans getting busy, which is the explanation for how giants came to be to begin with (but perhaps explains why the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were so keen on raping angels--they'd get giants out of the deal!!), so we're going to have to assume that giants passed their genes on through Noah's sons and daughters-in-law. But, really, how many years passed between Noah's flood and Moses leading the people out of Egypt to Canaan? This conservative site states that between the end of the flood (which they date at 2348 BC) and the exodus to Canaan (which they date at somewhere between 1504 BC - 1254 BC) means that approximately 1000 years passed between the two events. This site states that Noah's flood happened at approx. 4000 BC and Moses didn't start leading the Israelites out of Egypt until 1450 BC, giving Noah and the kids about 2550 years to repopulate the earth with their descendants. Either way, even if we took 8 people, and gave them 2550 years to fuck like rabbits, how many people would actually be on the earth to fight over the land of Canaan?
Noah was still alive when Abraham was born (You can do the math in Genesis chapter 11; Noah lived 350 years after the flood [Gen. 9:29], for a total of 950 years, bringing into question also god's decree before the flood that "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Genesis 6:3) and Terah (Abrham's father) sent Abram (Abraham) and his mother to live with Noah, and there he was trained in the Gospel of the Kingdom in Ur (where did this city come from only three generations removed from Noah, and while Noah was still kicking? The story goes that after the flood all the people on the earth came from the three sons of Noah...)
Notice that Abraham, when grown, then came out on the plains of Shinar, as he followed god's instructions to leave Ur of the Chaldee, and as he came out on the plains, there were all these men locked in battle. Where did they all come from? And Egypt, where Abraham went on his travels, where did they all come from? You mean to tell me that Ham had time to father all of Egypt when Shem was still working on building the Hebrews? (In all Genesis actuality, Shem is said to be the father of Hebrews, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, & Syrians; Ham is blamed for the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Hittites, and Ammorites; and poor youngest Japheth is the father of Greeks, Thracians, & Scthians [Why only three for him? Did his wife not like putting out??]. I mean, come on now... Even if they did get it on like rabbits, three sons had time to spawn thirteen different nations in only a few hundred years? As you can see from the time lines above, even if we go with the 2550 year span (which doesn't add up according to the genealogy in Genesis), even 2550 years is not enough time for 8 people to come up with hundreds of tribes, thousands of people, and languages; who forget not only that they are all related, but most of these cultures (specifically Egypt and Macedonia) don't even tell of a world-wide flood in their history, let alone a dude named Noah!
Where am I going with all of this?
There was no world-wide flood. The giants may have lived because they weren't in the place that was flooded. The many peoples of the earth were still around because not all of mankind died in the so-called world-wide flood. That's why there were cities, tribes, giants, and lands inhabited only a few generations after being supposedly reduced to eight come from--it's because the world was never flooded. :)
Thoughts?
17 comments:
Ummm, where in the world did you get that angels and giants reproduced? What freaky version of the Bible are you reading? You obviously have your timeline way screwed up - go to the Bible and check out the actual timeline of the flood - you are way off base! Ron Carlson offers a great explanation of the dinos, the flood, etc. Look him up -
I think of all the people that read this stuff and believe it, yet say Harry Potter is whack. At least we know for sure dinosaurs were indeed here, whether they were spawns of angels and woman or not. Those huge skeletons we've dug up along with different types of the homo genus tells me the bible is a great work of fiction.
Did It Rain before the Flood?
Genesis 2:5–6 suggests it did not rain before the flood:
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.1
But notice, these verses only state that shortly after the earth was created, it had not rained. How long did this condition last? Some believe this mist began the evaporation-rain cycle. If so, the period of no rain was brief, and it rained before the flood. Let’s look for other clues.
Rainbows. God promised never again to flood the entire earth (Genesis 9:12–17), a promise marked by a “bow in the cloud”—a rainbow. Rainbows form when raindrops refract sunlight. This suggests that rainbows began after the flood, which would mean there was no preflood rain.
Others disagree, saying rainbows may have been visible before the flood, but afterward God simply associated His promise with rainbows. This would be similar to the symbolism of a wedding ring. Rings existed before a wedding, but afterward the ring recalls a solemn vow. However, if rainbows suddenly began after the flood, the rainbow’s symbolic effect would have been more unforgettable and reassuring to the frightened survivors of the flood.
Some argue that rainbows would have formed before the flood every time water splashed and sunlight passed through the droplets. This argument overlooks that God’s promise concerned rainbows “in the cloud,” not a relatively few drops of water several feet above the ground.
A Terrarium. The Hebrew word translated “mist,” ed ($!), in Genesis 2:6 is used in only one other place in the Bible—Job 36:27. There it clearly means water vapor. So, did the preflood earth act as a humid terrarium in which water vapor evaporated, condensed without rainfall, and watered the earth? Could an earth-size terrarium produce enough water to supply major rivers, such as described in Genesis 2:10–14? Two preflood rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, were evidently the basis for naming the mighty postflood rivers that today bear the same names. [See Endnote 4 on page 290.]
The preflood earth was quite different from today’s earth. If the hydroplate theory is reasonably correct, earth’s preflood topography was smoother, so rivers flowed more slowly and required less water to keep them filled. No volcanoes, major mountains, glaciers, or polar ice existed before the flood. Approximately half the earth’s water was under the earth’s crust, so the earth’s surface had about half the water it has today. With 360-day years, days were slightly longer, so temperatures were slightly higher during the day and colder at night. [See pages 102–130 and Endnotes 12–14 on page 150.] The preflood earth had greater land area, because the flood produced today’s ocean basins. [See pages 136–155.] Preflood forests were vast and lush, enough to form today’s coal, oil, and methane deposits. This left little room for deserts. Could these preflood conditions have prevented rain, yet adequately watered a thirsty earth?
Condensation Nuclei. Water droplets almost always begin with water vapor condensing on a solid surface. A common example is early-morning dew that collects on grass. Raindrops, snowflakes, and fog particles begin growing on microscopic particles carried in the air. These particles, called condensation nuclei, are typically 0.001–0.0001 millimeters in diameter—less than one hundredth the diameter of a human hair. Each cubic inch of air we breathe contains at least 1,000 such particles. Water vapor molecules rarely collide and stick together; instead, a water droplet forms when trillions of water molecules collect on a microscopic particle.
Wind. Atmospheric temperature differences cause wind, which then mixes air that has different temperatures and moisture contents. The various “mixtures” give us weather: rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, fair weather, etc. Without major mountains, ice sheets, volcanoes, and as much ocean water as today,2 the preflood earth had more uniform temperatures. Also, abundant vegetation moderated temperatures by evaporative cooling during the day and condensation and heating at night. More uniform temperatures meant less wind3 and weather extremes.
If a water molecule were the size of a ping-pong ball, a condensation nucleus would be a house-size “rock” and a raindrop would be 100 miles in diameter. When a gaseous water molecule strikes that “rock,” much of the molecule’s energy is transferred to the “rock” as heat. If a somewhat “absorbent rock” is cold enough and the humidity is high enough, the molecule will stick; condensation will begin, and a raindrop will start to grow. The “rock,” slightly warmer because of the added energy from colliding water molecules, will warm the surrounding air, causing slight updrafts. Moist breezes plus updrafts would bring enough moisture to “the rock” for it to grow into a water droplet.
That “rock” and its attached water cannot “float” in calm air for long, just as a grain of sand cannot float in still water. Only wind can suspend condensation nuclei, just as only a swift stream can suspend a sand particle. With less preflood wind, condensation nuclei would receive less lift and stay closer to the ground. With more uniform temperatures globally, less air would rise over warmer areas—again, keeping nuclei and moisture closer to the ground. High clouds may not have existed.
Once water began collecting on nuclei near the ground, the heat of condensation warmed the adjacent air, causing it to rise. A microscopic droplet has a large cross-sectional area relative to its volume, so rising, moist air carried the tiny droplet upward. As it rapidly grew, its weight increased faster than its cross-sectional area, so it quickly settled to the earth and often collected other droplets in its path. We could describe this as fog rising from the earth and then settling back to water the ground before rain could form. (Sounds like Genesis 2:5–6, doesn’t it?) It would be similar to morning fog rising on a still lake, but with two differences.
First, without polar ice and snow-capped mountains before the flood, less solar radiation reflected back into space, so more of the Sun’s rays heated the earth during the day. With more forests, fewer (if any) clouds, and slightly longer days, the earth absorbed even more solar energy. Consequently, more water evaporated each day. At night, fewer clouds and longer nights allowed more heat to escape into space, causing more water to condense. (Today, clouds reflect back into space 20–25% of the incoming radiation and hold in much of the earth’s outgoing radiation.) Therefore, the preflood earth was watered more abundantly and uniformly by daily condensation than by rain today.
Heavy condensation before each sunrise kept moisture closer to the ground and restricted high-cloud formation. Today, morning fog evaporates soon after sunrise, before it can settle to the ground. With fewer, if any, high clouds before the flood, temperatures dropped more rapidly at night. This, coupled with more moisture in the daytime air, allowed water droplets to grow larger, settle to the ground faster, and be absorbed by the soil before morning evaporation could begin.
The second difference caused preflood fog droplets to grow even faster and larger. Without today’s main sources of condensation nuclei (volcanic debris, sulfur compounds from volcanoes, man-made pollutants, lightning-produced fires, sea salt from ocean spray, or dust kicked up by high winds) there were fewer condensation nuclei. Condensing more moisture on fewer nuclei meant fog droplets grew larger and settled faster.
First Rain. If it did not rain before the flood, how did the first rain form at the very beginning of the flood? As explained on pages 102–130, the drops of water falling at the beginning of the flood were not formed by condensing water. Instead, they formed by fragmenting and atomizing the upward-jetting subterranean waters.
Any credible explanation of the flood should explain why it probably did not rain before the flood, how the fertile earth was watered, what supplied the rivers, how violent rain4 fell so rapidly at the beginning of the flood, and why the rain ended after 40 days, even though the flood waters rose until the 150th day when all the preflood mountains were covered. Also, if the flood’s 40 days of rain formed by condensation, why didn’t that rain stop after a few days, because falling rain would have removed the condensation nuclei? The hydroplate theory answers these questions.
Oh yeah, that last comment was from a website called evidence for scientific creation - forgot to add that. I personally believe that God is the greatest scientist and our world and everything in it is a result of His scientific prowess. I cannot understand why people reject the idea of a God who made the world. It seems to me that scientists are continually studying in order to find the origins of creation, so they believe it is possible for man to figure out where we came from, but not a God to have done it. Crazy.
Darkmind: I thought everyone knew about this little bible sexual thingy! :) Of course, I grew up with it, but there it is in black and white...
Dar: They also believe in talking donkeys and snakes, and giant walls of water parting for some people but not for others... but not evolution... Things that make you go hmm...
Don: What is it with the "d" names lately?. Anyway, to your points:
1. Where do I get that angels and giants reproduced?
As Darkind alreayd pointed out, it was angels and people that made giants, but whatever. In the first block of quoted verses, it pretty much says that. You'll note that "they became men of renown" is also used to describe the so-called giants in later passages, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me, but being that "literally interpreting" sripture is in itself pretty subjective to the reader (don't even get me started on that!!), I suppose you could draw a conclusion that they are simply two or three seperate thoughts all within four sentences of each other...
2. It seems to me that scientists are continually studying in order to find the origins of creation, so they believe it is possible for man to figure out where we came from, but not a God to have done it.
I've stated before that science will never prove or disprove a god scenario. What science does is simply look for answers, find facts, and relate them as much as they are able toprove them base on experimentation. True science will not say--at least not until they have definitive proof--that there is no god, because, truth is, no one knows (or will ever probably know). I know I find it logically and resonably improbable (though not impossible) for there to be a god, especially the kind set forth by not only Christians, but Islam, Judaism, or any of the other less popular religions I have come into contact with. So until my mind has been shown through trial and error, science, or other irrefutable proof, I will continue to say there most likely isn't a god. It iosn't because I don't think a god could have done it; I just find it highly improbable based on my personal studies...
3. Ron Carlson offers a great explanation of the dinos, the flood,
I did find his web site, although nothing could be found in the way of a personal timeline of his. I have heard the arguments set forth by your later post, though, concerning "rain before the flood" and whatnot, but it's been so long, it's nice to hear it again (I suppose...). :)
What isn't answered by your comments, though, is not only about rain or not, which really wasn't a contention point per se, but about the people who may or may not have survived the flood, where they all came from, and so forth. The two timelines I cited are both from conservative, bible-literalists sites that use the literal bible to back up their highly disparaging time lines, but even so, none of these time lines is meshable with what science has found to be the case, so even if Ron were to use the slightly mor epopular 10,000 year young earth timeline, it still doesn't mesh with working theories, hypothesies, and facts that have been discovered both archeologically and mathematically. You see the true issue I have now?
4. What freaky version of the Bible are you reading?
NKJV.
Thanks all for your thoughts... Kepp 'em coming!
I was here, but I can't comment on the post because I didn't read it. I saw "bible" and stopped before my eyes burned and well, you know. Thanks anyway.
:)
I promise something in the near future for you, Kelly, that will keep your eyes from burning but bust your gut from laughter... :)
Sound okay?
Or would that be too-premature labor? :)
Miss ya!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20470390-2703,00.html
Umm... thanks for the link?
Are you trying to say this is proof of Noah's flood? Or that catastrophic floods happen all the time? That Noah's could have been localized?
Speak, man, SPEAK!!
Not sure when, but I seem to recall a post of your (maybe this one - dont have time to look), but you mentioned the young earth theory - here is something that may be of interest to you regarding that.
Creation Science Briefs
Subject: Carbon Dating
A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.
CEM Staff
Dave: Yes, you are correct in that I told about carbon-dating, and linked to some sites that told of some known shortfalls and how scientists have learned to work with what they know some of the issues are. You've hit on some of the key elements that scientists work around, but here are some links and extracts from sites that explain other methods that scientists use for dating materials:
ActionBioScience.org
Accuracy of dating
--Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay: Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
--Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
--Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating. Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
--The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock's age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs.
--Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology. Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.
You can also read these papares and links which deal with Carbon-dating, why it isn't used for the dating of most older fossils and such, and what soem other ways of measuring time are:
Validity of Carbon-14 Dating?
Radio-Carbon Dating
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Of course, there will always be some uncertainty as to exactly how old something may or may not be, but most of the examples you cited are "flukes" and perhaps even "set-ups," to show the fallacies of carbon dating, but once science learns that something they're doing isnt right or accurate, it's not like they bury their heads int he sand and say, No! These snails are 27,000 years old!" They look at what happened, they adjust, they learn from their mistakes.
There are lots of work-arounds for measuring Carbon 14 at the time and what should be present in the dead organisms, but there are also other elements they use to date with much longer halflives than Carbon 14 with a greater accuracy rate. Your points are wel taken, but a cursory look at what science has admitted to knowing what was already wrong with carbon-14, their work-arounds, and other methods for dating in addition to Carbon-14 dating for younger fossils, no scientists worth his beans would automatically proclaim living snails to be 27,000 years old. They would begin to employ the other methods of dating that they have. As any good scientists will tell you, even if you like the answer, you keep experimenting, testing, and retesting to ensure accuracy. (Not to mention that a living snail would be a great clue to someone that they weren't 27,000 years old! I'm wondering where they found a scientist who would say, "Sure! I'll carbon-date your snails!"
TO SUMMARIZE:
While you bring valid points to the table, the points of contention were already taken care of through other measures of dating and examining. To say that everything must be bunk based on a cursery Carbon-14 date is not valid, as other dating methods are used for anything closing in on the perhaps older than 50,000-70,000 years, as carbon-14's half-life is almost gone by that point anyhow. Many other forms of dating have backed up, not negated, most things carbon-dated within the past 50,000 years. So while all of science realizes that Carbon-14 is not the end-all, be-all of dating old things, neither do they simply raise their arms in the sky and proclaim "THE EARTH MUST BE YOUNG!!!" :) Although that would be a great ending to a creationist sci-fi movie, don't ya think?
Thanks for stopping by again!
There are other fictional stories about floods unrelated to Christianity.
Visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html to read all about it.
Oh my head.
Nice link, Dar!
I will definately be reading this in its entirety!
And as for the headache? Eat a cheesecake and call me in the morning! :)
It usually helps me, anyway...
With a Woodchuck cider... but not at the same time.... unless hurling gets rid of your headache...
Maybe you should stick with Tylonol... :D
Not sure when, but I seem to recall a post of your (maybe this one - dont have time to look), but you mentioned the young earth theory - here is something that may be of interest to you regarding that.
Creation Science Briefs
Subject: Carbon Dating
A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.
CEM Staff
Post a Comment