Another Preflood Relic

[Adam Nagy 49]

It looks like we've found another pre-flood relic that is misinterpreted through the eyes of evolution:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_...ldest_sculpture

[Mr Jack 0]

  Adam_777 said:

It looks like we've found another pre-flood relic that is misinterpreted through the eyes of evolution:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_...ldest_sculpture

29979[/snapback]

What features of this find, or where it was found, allow you to identify it as a pre-flood relic?

[Adam Nagy 49]

  Mr Jack said:

What features of this find, or where it was found, allow you to identify it as a pre-flood relic?

29996[/snapback]

Obviously, the article is limited but I generally regard out of place artifacts as a highly probable remnants of the pre-flood world. I can't prove it but nor can the other guys prove that it's actually 35,000 years old.

 

It's inferred from my belief as a creationist that the world is 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood 4500 years ago.

 

This bell was found in coal:

 

 

As many would say that evolution has a consilience of data (which I think is bunk). I would say that this is overwhelmingly applicable to creation.

 

Obviously, we can't be certain which articles are pre-flood and which are post flood but I would say that the more unusual finds and the more peculiar the location, whether it's burried in in coal or undisturbed under many layers of sediment it's likely that we have found a preflood artifact. Look up 'Oop Art' if you want to see the extensive nature of oddly placed items.

 

You get all kinds of weird theories like aliens, and what not, but that old dusty Bible is stark verboten.

[Arch 0]

  Adam_777 said:

It looks like we've found another pre-flood relic that is misinterpreted through the eyes of evolution:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_...ldest_sculpture

29979[/snapback]

Sorry Adam, I'm with Mr Jack. I didn't read anything in there that made me think there was anything to do with a global flood. You said yourself

 

"I can't prove it but nor can the other guys prove that it's actually 35,000 years old"

 

But the article claimed carbon dating had placed it ~35,000 old. I can't help but feel you're grasping at straws here.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

[falcone 2]

  Arch said:

Sorry Adam, I'm with Mr Jack. I didn't read anything in there that made me think there was anything to do with a global flood. You said yourself

 

"I can't prove it but nor can the other guys prove that it's actually 35,000 years old"

 

But the article claimed carbon dating had placed it ~35,000 old. I can't help but feel you're grasping at straws here.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

31771[/snapback]

YECs start from the premise that the world is less than 10000 years old. So they won't accept dating methods that return dates of more than 10000 years as valid.

 

On the other hand, I start from the premise that the world is greater than 10000 years old, so I have no reason to think that the date of 35000 years is too far from the mark.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  Arch said:

But the article claimed carbon dating had placed it ~35,000 old. I can't help but feel you're grasping at straws here.

31771[/snapback]

Carbon Dating isn't all that it is cracked up to be. It certainly isn't adhered to, like you think it would be either, by the evolutionists.

 

Watch Steve Austin explain how evos twist dating methods to their own assumptions:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...ge-of-the-earth

 

Now with all that in mind Evolutionists still ignore data that clearly defy their own paradigm. You are being asked to participate in a game that the rules disallow evidence outside the preset boundaries, my young friend.

 

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

[digitalartist 1]

  Adam_777 said:

Obviously, the article is limited but I generally regard out of place artifacts as a highly probable remnants of the pre-flood world. I can't prove it but nor can the other guys prove that it's actually 35,000 years old.

 

It's inferred from my belief as a creationist that the world is 6000 years old and that there was a world wide flood 4500 years ago.

 

This bell was found in coal:

 

 

As many would say that evolution has a consilience of data (which I think is bunk). I would say that this is overwhelmingly applicable to creation.

 

Obviously, we can't be certain which articles are pre-flood and which are post flood but I would say that the more unusual finds and the more peculiar the location, whether it's burried in in coal or undisturbed under many layers of sediment it's likely that we have found a preflood artifact. Look up 'Oop Art' if you want to see the extensive nature of oddly placed items.

 

You get all kinds of weird theories like aliens, and what not, but that old dusty Bible is stark verboten.

29998[/snapback]

 

With the application of logic and common sense it can be shown that the world wide flood did not happen as believed by creationists. So therefore the artifacts are neither pre nor post flood.

[digitalartist 1]

  Adam_777 said:

Now with all that in mind Evolutionists still ignore data that clearly defy their own paradigm. You are being asked to participate in a game that the rules disallow evidence outside the preset boundaries, my young friend. 

 

 

 

 

and creationists ignore the logic and common sense that clearly shows parts of the bible to be false because it defies their paradigm.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  digitalartist said:

and creationists ignore the logic and common sense that clearly shows parts of the bible to be false because it defies their paradigm.

31898[/snapback]

Like?

[jason777 1]

The corroborating evidence that it is in fact,preflood,is the carbon date itself.It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  digitalartist said:

With the application of logic and common sense it can be shown that the world wide flood did not happen as believed by creationists.  So therefore the artifacts are neither pre nor post flood.

31897[/snapback]

Maybe they're just make-believe...

[CTD 1]

  Adam_777 said:

  digitalartist said:

 

With the application of logic and common sense it can be shown that the world wide flood did not happen as believed by creationists.  So therefore the artifacts are neither pre nor post flood.

31897[/snapback]

Maybe they're just make-believe...

31919[/snapback]

Looks like cheerleading to me. If, as is claimed, it can be shown that the flood didn't happen, one might expect someone to find one of the appropriate threads and post some of this "logic and common sense". Of course I don't expect any such effort can be made which is consistent with either logic or common sense. I have never seen one.

[digitalartist 1]

  Adam Nagy said:

Like?

31899[/snapback]

Take the flood for example. If the ark did come to rest in the mountains of Ararat then the flood waters would not have covered Everest. Even taking into account the increase in height of the mountains by 6 inches per year, and reversing that to the estimated time of the flood, Everest would still have been some 13,000 feet higher that Ararat itself (the tallest mountain in the Ararat chain). If the waters did cover Everest then the ark would most likely not have landed in the Ararat chain but farther north invalidating the biblical account.

 

The bible indicates that the ark comes to rest on the same day the waters are receding and that the waters are lowering at a steady rate. If the waters were higher than Everest, then the only way the ark could come to rest on Ararat is if the waters dropped 13,000 feet in one day and then the rate reduced as the tops of the Ararat mountains were not visible for several days more. That would negate the biblical account of a steady reduction of the flood waters and invalidate the account.

 

This is just one example.

[digitalartist 1]

  jason777 said:

The corroborating evidence that it is in fact,preflood,is the carbon date itself.It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.

31906[/snapback]

 

Interesting. Carbon dating does not show dinosaurs bake at 35,000 years but much farther back. Also creationists loudly proclaim that carbon dating back past say 6000 years is wildly inaccurate so the artifact could just as easily be only 2000 years old assuming creationists are correct. I also find it amusing when creationists tear down something like carbon dating yet use it frequently to prove their points.

[digitalartist 1]

  CTD said:

Maybe they're just make-believe...

31919[/snapback]

Looks like cheerleading to me. If, as is claimed, it can be shown that the flood didn't happen, one might expect someone to find one of the appropriate threads and post some of this "logic and common sense". Of course I don't expect any such effort can be made which is consistent with either logic or common sense. I have never seen one.

31959[/snapback]

 

Guess you didn't bother to search

 

Another look at the biblical flood

 

Oh and I am revising my original work, covering more information but still in the logic common sense approach.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  digitalartist said:

Take the flood for example.  If the ark did come to rest in the mountains of Ararat then the flood waters would not have covered Everest.  Even taking into account the increase in height of the mountains by 6 inches per year, and reversing that to the estimated time of the flood, Everest would still have been some 13,000 feet higher that Ararat itself (the tallest mountain in the Ararat chain).  If the waters did cover Everest then the ark would most likely not have landed in the Ararat chain but farther north invalidating the biblical account.

 

The bible indicates that the ark comes to rest on the same day the waters are receding and that the waters are lowering at a steady rate.  If the waters were higher than Everest, then the only way the ark could come to rest on Ararat is if the waters dropped 13,000 feet in one day and then the rate reduced as the tops of the Ararat mountains were not visible for several days more.  That would negate the biblical account of a steady reduction of the flood waters and invalidate the account.

 

This is just one example.

32444[/snapback]

...and it's a poor example. You're mixing concepts together in a way that does not consider relevant creationist arguments that solve this issue. To fortify, just how much this world was rearranged during the flood, keep in mind that fossilized sea creatures are found on Mount Everest, among other mountain ranges buried in sedimentary layers:

 

u6lw9wSVXcw

 

digitalartist, if you can't see how you're mixing uniformitarian constraints in an arbitrary fashion to dismiss a catastrophe, that would make your uniformitarian presuppositions irrelevant, then we can't help you.

[Adam Nagy 49]

Oh, BTW, the bottom line is this; Mt. Everest, that big chunk of rock you see shifting and moving a little today, wasn't there before the flood because it's current state, as a tall jagged mountain, was a result of a cataclysmic flood which cracked and distorted this earth to produce either rapidly, or eventually, all the unusual features on the earth today. From coal beds, oil deposits, and fossil grave yards, to tall jagged mountains, huge canyons and ocean ridges.

[Adam Nagy 49]

Now this doesn't mean that before the flood the Earth was a homogeneous smooth cue ball but the earth as it is today has probably almost entirely erased the topography, as far as we can tell, of the pre-flood world.

 

Were there rivers and mountains before the flood? According to the Bible there were, at least large hills but it wasn't the ones we're looking at today.

[jason777 1]

  digitalartist said:

Interesting.  Carbon dating does not show dinosaurs bake at 35,000 years but much farther back.  Also creationists loudly proclaim that carbon dating back past say 6000 years is wildly inaccurate so the artifact could just as easily be only 2000 years old  assuming creationists are correct.  I also find it amusing when creationists tear down something like carbon dating yet use it frequently to prove their points.

32445[/snapback]

Ofcourse,the earths magnetic field has been decaying since it's creation.The only way for carbon dating to work is if the magnetic field remained stable for 20,000 years.So were measuring the carbon ratios,not the age.Any obect that has the same ratios are the same age,the exact age is uncertain.

 

  Quote

The Carbon-14 method of dating can be used to date things that were once living such as wood, animal skins, tissue, and bones (provided they are not mineralized). Due to the short half-life (5,730 years) of Carbon-14, this method can only be used  to date things that are less than 50,000 years old (max).  And though some evolutionists claim that it is accurate up to 40,000 years,1 in reality it is highly unreliable for anything over 5,000 years old.

For example, roughly half of the dates produced by this method are rejected by archeologists as being either too far off or impossible.2  Those who think it is accurate beyond 5,000 years should know that C-14 has been used to date over 20 different Dinosaur Bones and other Artifacts associated with dinosaurs (such as wood and trees from Axel Heiberg Island, and coal), 3,4,5,6 and in every case ages of between 9,800 and 50,000 years were obtained.  Other methods of radiometric dating require the use of various unverifiable assumptions and are also, for that reason (and various others), highly questionable. 

 

For those who wonder why dates that are older than 6,000 years are often obtained by this method, consider the words of Sylvia Baker:

 

"Many crucial objections cast doubt on the reliability of this method.  We shall consider just two of them.

 

1. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in equilibrium in the atmosphere -- that it is being broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced.  However, calculations made to test this assumption suggest that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old..."

 

2.  ... It is also true that cosmic rays would have been deflected away from the earth most effectively by the earth's magnetic field if, as we have argued, this was much stronger in the past.  With fewer cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere, there would have been less production of carbon-14 then than now.

http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm - 13k -

[Guest RoaringAtheist]

  Quote

Ofcourse,the earths magnetic field has been decaying since it's creation.The only way for carbon dating to work is if the magnetic field remained stable for 20,000 years.So were measuring the carbon ratios,not the age.Any obect that has the same ratios are the same age,the exact age is uncertain.

Could you please supply a source for the assertion that the magnetic field is decaying at a high rate in the last few thousand years, as you believe? Also, I'm unsure why you would only bother with carbon dating - it's not the only one, y'know. Or are you saying each and every dating method is flawed? :-x

 

Regardless of this, I don't see where the pre-Flood comes in. We have no evidence for the Flood, so I'm not sure how you could claim anything about this particular item being before or after this supposed event?

 

Most christians excluding YECs would generally accept that the scientific measuremens that this is older than the 4500-6000 years suggested here, are correct or at least in the ballpark. It seems that the rejection of dating methods and the like are basically just reflecting possible problems to the theory, because personal preference overshadows the actual evidence.

 

I think it's intellectually dishonest. :-S

[Ron 10]

  digitalartist said:

With the application of logic and common sense it can be shown that the world wide flood did not happen as believed by creationists.  So therefore the artifacts are neither pre nor post flood.

31897[/snapback]

With the application of logic and common sense, your statement above makes no sense. Just because you wish it "not to be so" doesn't make it "not so".

[jason777 1]

  RoaringAthiest said:

Could you please supply a source for the assertion that the magnetic field is decaying at a high rate in the last few thousand years, as you believe?

  Wiki said:

The Earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing a relative decay of about 5% over the last 150 years [7] The Magsat satellite and later satellites have used 3-axis vector magnetometers to probe the 3-D structure of the Earth's magnetic field. The later Ørsted satellite allowed a comparison indicating a dynamic geodynamo in action that appears to be giving rise to an alternate pole under the Atlantic Ocean west of S. Africa.[8]

  Creation Wiki said:

Geomagnetic field decay is based on observations regarding the strength of Earth's magnetic field for over the last 150 years. Dr. Thomas Barnes determined that it is decaying and these findings imply a young age of the Earth because if the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible.

http://creationwiki.org/Geomagnetic_field_decay - 35k -

 

  RoaringAtheist said:

Also, I'm unsure why you would only bother with carbon dating - it's not the only one, y'know. Or are you saying each and every dating method is flawed? :-x

I'm saying that the majority of dating methods confirm the earth cannot be billions of years old and some have pinned it down to ~6,500 years old.To reject the majority of dating methods and picking the minority that are inconclusive is called cherry picking.

 

I can't direct link the thread for some reason,but you can look at "Young Earth Age Correlations" in this forum.

 

 

Thanks.

[Ron 10]

  falcone said:

YECs start from the premise that the world is less than 10000 years old. So they won't accept dating methods that return dates of more than 10000 years as valid.

 

On the other hand, I start from the premise that the world is greater than 10000 years old, so I have no reason to think that the date of 35000 years is too far from the mark.

31774[/snapback]

That is an incorrect statement falcone, your presumption is Billions, not simply "greater than 10000 years old". And 45 Billion (or what ever the current flexible amount) and 35,000 are a great deal different.

[Guest Instructorus Rex]

  jason777 said:

Ofcourse,the earths magnetic field has been decaying since it's creation.

 

I guess it's odd then that the earth's magnetic field actually fluctuates instead of degrading. Making for the interesting finding that the earth's magnetic field was actually weaker 6,500 years ago than it is today. How does your view of exponential decay deal with this?

 

Furthermore, the fluctuation of the earth's magnetic field affects radiocarbon dating only in that it can affect the C14 to C12 ratio in the atmosphere. We can, however, calibrate this ratio using tree rings, ice cores, and varves and the fact that these calibrated dates correspond nicely with other radiometric dating methods in addition to non-radioactive dating methods like varves provides exceptionally strong evidence for the accuracy of this method.

 

 

  Quote

It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.

 

Carbon dating does not date fossils since fossils contain no carbon. From another of your posts (note the bolded text):

 

  Quote

The Carbon-14 method of dating can be used to date things that were once living such as wood, animal skins, tissue, and bones (provided they are not mineralized).

 

[CTD 1]

  Instructorus Rex said:

I guess it's odd then that the earth's magnetic field actually fluctuates instead of degrading.  Making for the interesting finding that the earth's magnetic field was actually weaker 6,500 years ago than it is today.  How does your view of exponential decay deal with this?

37000[/snapback]

It's not odd at all to encounter ad hoc hypotheses from evolutionists dealing with data they'd prefer not to exist. Oddest thing about this one is how obviously it conflicts with the proposed mechanism. If you build a small magnetic field generator based on their standard model, it won't ever reverse polarity. It cannot.

 

  Quote

Furthermore, the fluctuation of the earth's magnetic field affects radiocarbon dating only in that it can affect the C14 to C12 ratio in the atmosphere.  We can, however, calibrate this ratio using tree rings, ice cores, and varves and the fact that these calibrated dates correspond nicely with other radiometric dating methods in addition to non-radioactive dating methods like varves provides exceptionally strong evidence for the accuracy of this method.

Great - a big elaborate circle. The tree ring radiocarbon date proves the varve radiocarbon date, which in turn proves the ice core radiocarbon date, which proves the tree ring radio carbon date. So we can overlook the fact that a critical assumption of the whole evodating method is known to be false.

 

  Quote

  Quote

It returned a date of 35,000 years,the same amount of carbon ratios found in dinosaur foosils that died in the flood when the atmosphere was much different than it is now.

Carbon dating does not date fossils since fossils contain no carbon. From another of your posts (note the bolded text):

37000[/snapback]

There is no conflict between the quoted statements.

 

  Quote

The Carbon-14 method of dating can be used to date things that were once living such as wood, animal skins, tissue, and bones (provided they are not mineralized).

Apparently you don't know that mineralization isn't an instantaneous process. Many relics have undergone partial mineralization.

 

Your own statement would be accurate if you substituted a word and said "Carbon dating does not date fossils which contain no carbon.