Marsupial in arctic supports that man was on Pangaea.

[Bungle_Bear]

No idea what you are talking about.

A 4-year-old child could understand the point I made, but you can't?

Apparently it is some surprise to you anything can be older than Babel? Get serious. If you want to offer actual dates for Egypt show the basis for the dating.

One last time, all based on your own admissions:
1. Dad accepts scientifically derived dates can be older than Babel
2. Dad accepts that anything dated older than Babel by science is, indeed, older than Babel.
3. Dad does not accept how much older than Babel science claims - but he still accepts that it is older than Babel.
4. Egypt is dated older than Babel - Dad contradicts himself the moment it becomes obvious that he is in a corner and has no way out.

 

[dad]

No, I'm wanting you to provide actual evidence for your claims. That's it.

Name a science claim I make and I will see what I can do. Meanwhile you seem to believe in the dates of science regarding when Pangaea broke up. Dare you not support them? Ha.

 

[dad]

A 4-year-old child could understand the point I made, but you can't?

One last time, all based on your own admissions:
1. Dad accepts scientifically derived dates can be older than Babel

Nope. As I stated many times, they are belief based phony dates. Lurkers, if he spam posts again pretending I accept same nature in the past based dates, realize that he was answered many times...no I do not.

2. Dad accepts that anything dated older than Babel by science is, indeed, older than Babel.

Wrong. Yes there was a lot going on before Bael, so obviously if you had access to real dates, we could date some things older. But not with science. Science uses this nature for dates and nothing else. How could their dates apply to a different natured past? If science dated something say, 5000 years old, and I had no reason to challenge it, I could go with the dates for sake of argument. But when it comes to any important events that need an accurate date, science is useless. The fact that something is dated older in many cases might be true, but how much older is way beyond the abilities of science to know and deduce with their belief based dating system. Egypt must have been here before it was considered a kingdom. But it was not here very long.

3. Dad does not accept how much older than Babel science claims - but he still accepts that it is older than Babel.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Yes things were here before Babel obviously. The dating system of science is totally inadequate to give us any accurate dates though.

4. Egypt is dated older than Babel - Dad contradicts himself the moment it becomes obvious that he is in a corner and has no way out.

If science dates Egypt older than Babel then let's see the details! What was dated and how?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nope. As I stated many times, they are belief based phony dates. Lurkers, if he spam posts again pretending I accept same nature in the past based dates, realize that he was answered many times...no I do not.

You sure you want to stick to this claim despite me linking to your own posts where you categorically state that you do accept this point? Try a little honesty once in a while. You know how yesterday I told you everyone was laughing AT you, not WITH you? That's because you come up with these incredibly stupid posts where you flatly contradict yourself and then pretend you have been consistent all along. You are truly risible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Name a science claim I make and I will see what I can do. Meanwhile you seem to believe in the dates of science regarding when Pangaea broke up. Dare you not support them? Ha.

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.
But evidence for your OP would be a good place to start.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Feel free to repeat and spam nonsense I guess. If you want your dating system accepted defend it. En guarde!

When did we finally enter the current state nature? That is, after what date or event can we accept radiocarbon dating as reasonably accurate?

 

[dad]

You sure you want to stick to this claim despite me linking to your own posts where you categorically state that you do accept this point?

I looked at your links, sorry, you seem to have some sort of comprehension deficit. In addition I have clarified several times about how same nature in the past based dating is simply no good beyond the time of Babel. Not only that but even as we get close to the time of the nature change, radioactive decay dates are not trustworthy because the collaborating evidences used such as tree rings would also be useless for dates.

Since you seem unable or wiling to grasp the simple basic fact that a different nature in the past, as I think the bible and history indicate existed, would render dates based on there having been a same nature in the past useless...I have a question for you. Are you some sort of communist spam bot whose only purpose is to disrupt and play mind games of denial?

 

[dad]

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.
But evidence for your OP would be a good place to start.

It is an extraordinary claim to claim a same nature in the past that cannot be proven. The OP was about how marsupials and dino remains were found way up in the arctic. That is what would be expected if animals lived on a supercontinent that later broke up and the land mass they died and lived on was hundreds of miles north. This fits the idea also, that there was still this giant continent when Noah's ark landed and also a little later when the Babel incident occurred. It fits the evidences of languages and migrations and how beliefs got around the world and etc etc etc.

Now if you have something you think is sciency that would destroy this model, one would think we would see it posted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is an extraordinary claim to claim a same nature in the past that cannot be proven. The OP was about how marsupials and dino remains were found way up in the arctic. That is what would be expected if animals lived on a supercontinent that later broke up and the land mass they died and lived on was hundreds of miles north. This fits the idea also, that there was still this giant continent when Noah's ark landed and also a little later when the Babel incident occurred. It fits the evidences of languages and migrations and how beliefs got around the world and etc etc etc.

Now if you have something you think is sciency that would destroy this model, one would think we would see it posted.

We have evidence that the Earth was a single continent, but there is zero evidence that Noah's ark existed, nor is there evidence for the Tower of Babel.
Do you have any such evidence?

 

[dad]

When did we finally enter the current state nature? That is, after what date or event can we accept radiocarbon dating as reasonably accurate?

I don't think that sort of dating can be accurate even centuries after a nature change. The correlations they use such as tree rings or corals, or varves or ice layers etc are no good in a nature change!

But to answer your question, if I assume the time of the tower of babel coincided with the time that the nature change happened, all we need to do is find a date for Babel. Babel was something like 110 years (or whatever) after the flood ended. The math is pretty easy, even if we allow for a century or two of possible interpretive error in dates for the flood. I find it convenient to go with the dates of Ussher for now.

AIG says it was about 4400 years ago that the flood started.

"4359...."
Timeline for the Flood

I think it is safe to say that any dates you posit for 4400 plus years ago would rely on radioactive decay dating?

 

[dad]

We have evidence that the Earth was a single continent, but there is zero evidence that Noah's ark existed, nor is there evidence for the Tower of Babel.
Do you have any such evidence?

Actually, I think that the tower of Babel is evidenced.
Some Very Compelling Evidence the Tower of Babel Was Real

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, I think that the tower of Babel is evidenced.
Some Very Compelling Evidence the Tower of Babel Was Real

I've said it before: I can accept that there was an exceptionally tall tower that existed in the time of the Old Testament being built in Babylon.
But unless you can give evidence that it really reached the heavens and you can also give evidence that all languages in the world started from that point, it's just an exceptionally tall tower, along with an exceptionally tall tale.

 

[dad]

I've said it before: I can accept that there was an exceptionally tall tower that existed in the time of the Old Testament being built in Babylon.
But unless you can give evidence that it really reached the heavens and you can also give evidence that all languages in the world started from that point, it's just an exceptionally tall tower, along with an exceptionally tall tale.

Well, believe what you like, remember your beliefs are not science. I look at more than the limited scope that science involves. History, Scripture, prophesy, known spiritual realities, and etc. I also look at what is actually known in science. For example as you mentioned it is known that there was a super continent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, believe what you like, remember your beliefs are not science.

Neither are yours.

I look at more than the limited scope that science involves. History, Scripture, prophesy, known spiritual realities, and etc. I also look at what is actually known in science. For example as you mentioned it is known that there was a super continent.

It is known there was a super continent. But all of the rest is just what you believe in your own mind, with zero evidence to back it up, so you're really convincing no-one of your claims. At all. Ever.

 

[dad]

Neither are yours.

I do not need them to be. Those who make science claims have a burden of support. The claims of Scripture are very high above the pitiful level of science.

It is known there was a super continent. But all of the rest is just what you believe in your own mind, with zero evidence to back it up, so you're really convincing no-one of your claims. At all. Ever.

Jesus knew about Noah and the flood. Sorry, you may not simply wave away the tower of Babel or anything else. Neither does your attempts at ignoring or minimizing history or the bible have any weight at all, least of all any scientific weight.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do not need them to be. Those who make science claims have a burden of support. The claims of Scripture are very high above the pitiful level of science.


Jesus knew about Noah and the flood. Sorry, you may not simply wave away the tower of Babel or anything else. Neither does your attempts at ignoring or minimizing history or the bible have any weight at all, least of all any scientific weight.

Except the Bible is claiming nothing. YOU are the one making the claims, and yet you do nothing to support them. You say that we, by that I mean anyone who disagrees with you, have to provide evidence for our claims, and even if we do, you just handwave them away and claim victory.

So this is your chance to actually be the bigger man for once: provide ACTUAL evidence for your claims.

 

[New Birth]

sure there are tectonic plates but limited ability to move. Do people really believe the continents are floating around in the ocean. Take away the water and there is land my friends, I know some of you dont want to believe that. Get it together guys.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

sure there are tectonic plates but limited ability to move. Do people really believe the continents are floating around in the ocean. Take away the water and there is land my friends, I know some of you dont want to believe that. Get it together guys.

... que?

 

[dad]

Except the Bible is claiming nothing. YOU are the one making the claims, and yet you do nothing to support them. You say that we, by that I mean anyone who disagrees with you, have to provide evidence for our claims, and even if we do, you just handwave them away and claim victory.

Ah, so now you claim that there is not a strong bible case for the different nature in the past. Well, I think I tamed that tiger a long time ago.

You apparently want bible evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, so now you claim that there is not a strong bible case for the different nature in the past. Well, I think I tamed that tiger a long time ago.

You apparently want bible evidence?

I'm not asking for evidence from the Bible. I want actual scientific evidence for your claims.
And you tamed nothing. Your ego definitely needs taming.