Posted on 06/02/2005 2:06:01 PM PDT by dread78645
I don't "know" that I'll get NO response.
I *suspect* that any answer I do get will be shallow and dismissive of the problems I noted associated with the C14 variable ratio proposition.
All we can do is try, I guess.
What is amusing is that this putative flood changed not only the carbon concentrations, but also concentrations of chemicals other than carbon. Potassium, argon, uranium, lead, etc., had their isotopic ratios changed so as to exactly change the estimated age of the Earth to aboutt 4.5ga. Likewise the O16 and O18 ratios were changed exactly as the C12 and C14 ratios.
It's not so much that things may change in a flood (though, such changes are not observed in any subsequent flooding), but that the changes were coordinated exactly so as to fool people into getting the results no matter what method is used. (You may breathe now.)
That sentence was so long that I used Alta Vista to translate it into German and back: It's emergency much that things May CHANGE in A flood (though, look for CHANGES of acres emergency observed in any subsequent flooding), but that in such a way the CHANGES were coordinated exactly so as tons fool people into getting the results NO more matt what method is used.
hehhehheh... completely concretely...
I didn't want to go into the potassium, uranium, and argon isotopes... I don't know enough about 'em to get the same kind of punchline as in 118:3:j
;)
Yeah, but my brains disappear when I get near a good set of hips.
flooddidit
"Criticisms like this get tiresome. If you've been on these threads for any amount of time, you've seen the mountains of evidence for the various dating methods."
And all of those pieces of evidence have criticisms. In addition, they are at variance with other dating methods (such as helium escape in zircons, C14 dating, etc.)
The fact is that the major piece of evidence used for dating rocks is fossils, and the date of the rock is used to assign dates to the remaining fossils.
However, this assumes that we know how long a certain species is extant, which we do not. There are many species that are extant today which ONLY have fossils from much earlier periods.
"have you (or they) ever tried to wash the carbon into or out of organic matter using water?"
You're missing the point. It's not about washing out, it's about burial. The flood buried massive amounts of organic material, which took it out of the biosphere. This is where we get coal, fossils, and all the other stuff in the geologic column.
As I mentioned, the amount of atmospheric C14 remained relatively constant between before-the-flood and after-the-flood. It is the amount of carbon in the biosphere which decreased so dramatically, thus making the C14 generated in the atmosphere more prevalent percentage-wise.
you really didn't read my reply, did you?
read it again.
read it carefully.
the "amount of carbon in the biosphere" is irrelevant. It is the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which pertains.
read it again.
read it carefully.
shoot for comprehension this time.
yep: as suspected, the eventual reply was indeed shallow and dismissive.
Someone posted a while ago that we have written records from Egyptian pharaohs who lived at about the same time as the supposed flood. Yet, none of them mention anything about such a deluge. No one has explained that, either.
---
Many different cultures (Native Americans to Chinese) have global flood accounts as part of their oral tradition. Explain that fact.
"Someone posted a while ago..." Talk about peer-review.
easy: until the advent of mechanical transport, most people lived and died within 30miles of the place where they were born. A local flood to such an isolated primitive would indeed seem to be a world-drowner. Add generations of the "telephone game" effect as oral traditions are handed down, and a piddly little flood gets built up into Oroborus Eats The World.
Moreover, 15,000 years or so ago, there WAS a massive global flood which inundated the coastlines of all the continents, raising the sea-level an hundred or more feet, drowning miles and miles and miles of coastal plain... where most folks lived... in a relatively sudden flood. This flood was accompanied by massive climatic shifts and widespread torrential rains. These rains swept the Sahara on-and-off for decades, as an example.
We call it "the end of the last glacial period"
Primitive cultures live and die by what the rivers around them do. Pretty much all early agrarian cultures arose around rivers. It's not surprising that stories about terrible floods are common.
The Egyptians kept detailed written records of pretty much everything that went on in their kingdom. By 2500 BC, the Old Kingdom was in full swing. And yet, there is no mention in Egyptian records of any global flood. How do you explain that?
or a baby-killing nazi... can't forget to include those choice epithets
Not sure there isnt. They do have a water God. Reading about him leads you to different kinds of stories about floods. Beyond that though there are other cultures that record it.
People will view the historical records along with the myths and legends from different peoples at the time as support of the Biblical flood.
I guess it depends on your perspective.
Yes, they had to flap their little arms really hard.
Sanddidit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.