Marsupial in arctic supports that man was on Pangaea.

[dad]

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.

OK, so how does this relate to whether man was on Pangaea?

 

[New Birth]

OK, so how does this relate to whether man was on Pangaea?

There was no Pangaea.

 

[dad]

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.

The bible is about spirits and spiritual things such as creation. You want natural and present nature evidences for something not natural. You forget that you cannot prove the nature in the past was the same so you may not claim things based on that belief.
I see you again allude to having a bible case that would be stronger than mine. Cut the jokes.

 

[dad]

There was no Pangaea.

Oh. You know that how?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The bible is about spirits and spiritual things such as creation. You want natural and present nature evidences for something not natural. You forget that you cannot prove the nature in the past was the same so you may not claim things based on that belief.
I see you again allude to having a bible case that would be stronger than mine. Cut the jokes.

You are making claims about the natural world. Why is it outrageous for me to ask for natural evidence?
You cannot prove in any way shape or form that 'nature' of the past different. The only one making a joke here is you.

Well... maybe the other new guy.

 

[dad]

You are making claims about the natural world.

Not at all. Science is. They claim this natural waorld was the same in the past. That is a claim and requires support.

Why is it outrageous for me to ask for natural evidence?

If the past was as the bible and history indicate it was not natural as we now know nature.

You cannot prove in any way shape or form that 'nature' of the past different.

You cannot prove in any way shape or form that 'nature' of the past was the same. Period. So lose any models (all science models) based on that claim/belief. Period.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all. Science is. They claim this natural waorld was the same in the past. That is a claim and requires support.

If the past was as the bible and history indicate it was not natural as we now know nature.



You cannot prove in any way shape or form that 'nature' of the past was the same. Period. So lose any models (all science models) based on that claim/belief. Period.

Show me evidence for your claims about the 'past nature' of the world being different.
Show me evidence about man existing on the world at the time of Pangaea.
Show me evidence of Noah's Ark existing.
Show me evidence of the Tower of Bable existing and being the source of all the world's languages.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

That is the best data, yes, but as I said before, we have tree ring dating of Egyptian cedar that established timelines that go back as far as 3000BCE.

But looking at radiocarbon dates, you seem to agree that they become accurate sometime after 2300 BCE (Babel in your chronology).

So if "Radiocarbon dating places the exact beginning of the New Kingdom between 1570 BC and 1544 BC" this should not be troubling to you. This is 700+ years after Babel and this would seem to gibe with standard Biblical chronologies relating to Egypt.

But we don't have just one date. Researchers have collated entire chronologies of Egypt with radiocarbon dates.

Ancient Egypt dominated the Mediterranean world for several thousand years. However, the absolute chronology of this civilization has been uncertain, even though the sequence of rulers is well documented. Bronk Ramsey et al. (p. 1554; see the Perspective by Bruins) now provide a detailed radiocarbon-based record using more than 200 samples that spans much of this time and reduces uncertainties in some cases to less than 20 years. To avoid artifacts, the authors dated only short-lived plant remains from known contexts (i.e., that were associated with specific reigns). They then used the known reign lengths as a further constraint to obtain a final chronology. The final dates agree most closely with the previous older chronology but force some revisions to the timing of events in the Old Kingdom, the period in the third millennium B.C.E. when Egypt attained its first continuous peak of civilization.

And that chronology goes, step by step, data point by data point, back in the past. And these samples are associated with specific reigns. Not by consulting a king list, but by looking at the physical evidence of these archeological sites. If this wood is associated with a carved cartouche of Pharaoh So-and-So, that's a real connection.

And this chain of dates presses back in time "Our radiocarbon data indicate that the New Kingdom started between 1570 and 1544 B.C.E., and the reign of Djoser in the Old Kingdom started between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E.;"

A series of dates and reigns that is continuous across your proposed date for Babel and the Flood. The Egyptians didn't notice these events. They kept on being Egyptian the whole time. I know you have doubts about radiocarbon dating, but we have an independent clock here - the lives and reigns of pharaohs.

 

[New Birth]

Oh. You know that how?

The fact that the continents are not floating in the oceans is a pretty good piece of knowledge. also the colliding of the plates would have no doubt created mountain ranges much much larger than the earth currently has.

 

[dad]

Show me evidence for your claims about the 'past nature' of the world being different

Far as science goes, it assumes it was the same. Prove it. Otherwise it is a belief only.

Show me evidence about man existing on the world at the time of Pangaea.

Try the bible.

I have looked at the reasons science says man did not live then. None of which are more than beliefs. People like you with only beliefs are in no position to ask for evidence when you can provide none, and accept none that is not part of your belief set!

Show me evidence of Noah's Ark existing.
Show me evidence of the Tower of Bable existing and being the source of all the world's languages.

I showed evidence the tower of Babel existed. Now if you want to hide in the safe place in your head where that tower must have been something other than the tower of Scripture and history...well, please do not even say the word evidence!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Far as science goes, it assumes it was the same. Prove it. Otherwise it is a belief only.

Try the bible.

I have looked at the reasons science says man did not live then. None of which are more than beliefs. People like you with only beliefs are in no position to ask for evidence when you can provide none, and accept none that is not part of your belief set!

I showed evidence the tower of Babel existed. Now if you want to hide in the safe place in your head where that tower must have been something other than the tower of Scripture and history...well, please do not even say the word evidence!

Maybe actually do something useful like showing me something instead of telling me that it's just belief that I'm wrong would go a long way. You constantly make claims that have zero evidence, and when pressed for evidence, you act with a haughty spirit and think you're above everyone.
Although I don't know why I bother. You've been up to this same spiel for... 14 years now, and I know there's no way you're going to suddenly change your mind.
So I'm just going to put you back on my ignore list.

 

[dad]

That is the best data, yes, but as I said before, we have tree ring dating of Egyptian cedar that established timelines that go back as far as 3000BCE.

As I pointed out if it was a different nature in the past trees grew in weeks. So you have no rings to help you.

But looking at radiocarbon dates, you seem to agree that they become accurate sometime after 2300 BCE (Babel in your chronology).

?? Accurate?? No. Highly inaccurate. Of no use at all. Wildly wrong, and they get worse very fast as we go backwards.

So if "Radiocarbon dating places the exact beginning of the New Kingdom between 1570 BC and 1544 BC" this should not be troubling to you. This is 700+ years after Babel and this would seem to gibe with standard Biblical chronologies relating to Egypt.

Let's look at that for a minute. Ussher put the flood at something like 4400 years ago. If we subtract 2019 years from that we have about two thousand and three hundred plus years. That means 2300 plus BC. Correct? What is this 1500 BC business you cite?? Doesn't make sense.

But we don't have just one date. Researchers have collated entire chronologies of Egypt with radiocarbon dates.

No. They have made dates based on patterns of isotopes. That would only equal years if nature was the same all the way back. If nature was different it is not dates. As for chronologies...based on what king lists!!!!? I dare you to bring them up.

Ancient Egypt dominated the Mediterranean world for several thousand years. However, the absolute chronology of this civilization has been uncertain, even though the sequence of rulers is well documented. Bronk Ramsey et al. (p. 1554; see the Perspective by Bruins) now provide a detailed radiocarbon-based record using more than 200 samples that spans much of this time and reduces uncertainties in some cases to less than 20 years. To avoid artifacts, the authors dated only short-lived plant remains from known contexts (i.e., that were associated with specific reigns). They then used the known reign lengths as a further constraint to obtain a final chronology. The final dates agree most closely with the previous older chronology but force some revisions to the timing of events in the Old Kingdom, the period in the third millennium B.C.E. when Egypt attained its first continuous peak of civilization.

As I said, the ratios of isotopes and the patterns we see in them. Not dates..unless nature was the same!

And that chronology goes, step by step, data point by data point, back in the past. And these samples are associated with specific reigns. Not by consulting a king list, but by looking at the physical evidence of these archeological sites. If this wood is associated with a carved cartouche of Pharaoh So-and-So, that's a real connection.

Tree rings and wood with isotope patterns have zero meaning in real time unless nature was the same. You need to get the horse before the cart.

And this chain of dates presses back in time "Our radiocarbon data indicate that the New Kingdom started between 1570 and 1544 B.C.E., and the reign of Djoser in the Old Kingdom started between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E.;"

Same state past interpretation of isotope patterns in other words, to be simple and clear. Religion.

A series of dates and reigns that is continuous across your proposed date for Babel and the Flood.

Firstly you apparently had the Babel dates wrong by 1000 years or whatever in your post. Secondly, all you offer to get dates is same nature in the past based beliefs. Your dates are wrong.

The Egyptians didn't notice these events. They kept on being Egyptian the whole time.

False. There was no Egypt till after Babel! What was not noticed was your religious dates.

I know you have doubts about radiocarbon dating, but we have an independent clock here - the lives and reigns of pharaohs.

Oh goodie, sounds like you are about to bring up the king lists. Go for it.

 

[dad]

The fact that the continents are not floating in the oceans is a pretty good piece of knowledge. also the colliding of the plates would have no doubt created mountain ranges much much larger than the earth currently has.

How do you determine that mountains would have been pushed up higher than what we now have in places like the Himalayan mountains? Physics?

 

[dad]

Maybe actually do something useful like showing me something instead of telling me that it's just belief that I'm wrong would go a long way. You constantly make claims that have zero evidence, and when pressed for evidence, you act with a haughty spirit and think you're above everyone.
Although I don't know why I bother. You've been up to this same spiel for... 14 years now, and I know there's no way you're going to suddenly change your mind.
So I'm just going to put you back on my ignore list.

No problem. You would have had to show your claims to be more than beliefs to be treated as more.

 

[New Birth]

How do you determine that mountains would have been pushed up higher than what we now have in places like the Himalayan mountains? Physics?

The distance the continents would have had to travel I believe would have displaced much more earth than appears within current mountain ranges.

 

[dad]

The distance the continents would have had to travel I believe would have displaced much more earth than appears within current mountain ranges.

I see. OK. What about the fossil evidences, that the same creatures and plants lived on different continents?

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I pointed out if it was a different nature in the past trees grew in weeks. So you have no rings to help you.

The let's go back to my other question that you ignored. How do you think tree rings form? It is from annual variations in sunlight that make the plants grow faster and slower.

?? Accurate?? No. Highly inaccurate. Of no use at all.

Then why do you even pretend to want to discuss them.

Let's look at that for a minute. Ussher put the flood at something like 4400 years ago. If we subtract 2019 years from that we have about two thousand and three hundred plus years. That means 2300 plus BC. Correct? What is this 1500 BC business you cite?? Doesn't make sense.

Right, this is Egypt after your Flood, after Babel. You agree that's where Egypt should be. So this should be okay with you. When was the Exodus? 1500 BC plus or minus a century or two, I expect. So we should all be in agreement that this radiocarbon date is valid.

As for chronologies...based on what king lists!!!!? I dare you to bring them up.

We don't just have lists. For many of them, particularly for the relevant pharaohs of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, we have their names carved in inscriptions honoring their reigns. The kings and their reigns add up to a couple thousand years. And these are verified with the radiocarbon dates. There is too much Egyptian history to cram between Moses and where you want Babel to be.

 

[dad]

The let's go back to my other question that you ignored. How do you think tree rings form? It is from annual variations in sunlight that make the plants grow faster and slower.

I agree. That is how rings form now. The trick is to show that they grew the same way in this nature 4400 years ago. Not just act as if they must have.

Right, this is Egypt after your Flood, after Babel. You agree that's where Egypt should be. So this should be okay with you. When was the Exodus? 1500 BC plus or minus a century or two, I expect. So we should all be in agreement that this radiocarbon date is valid.

If you are asking if I can accept dates that are approx from 1500 BC, I would say yes. But I would reserve the right to look at any claimed date if it was important. Why?

We don't just have lists. For many of them, particularly for the relevant pharaohs of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom, we have their names carved in inscriptions honoring their reigns.

Can you show that the inscriptions have dates?

The kings and their reigns add up to a couple thousand years. And these are verified with the radiocarbon dates. There is too much Egyptian history to cram between Moses and where you want Babel to be.

You think so. I don't. Go ahead and show the kings listed in stone along with the years they ruled?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I agree. That is how rings form now. The trick is to show that they grew the same way in this nature 4400 years ago. Not just act as if they must have.

Don't you think people would have noticed that the sun was fluctuating every few weeks instead of following its usual annual course? (Of course, since they were used to the old nature, wouldn't they notice the solar fluctuations going away, leaving us with a boring old normal year?) Don't you think they would have noticed plants growing 10 times faster or slower?

Your hypothesis requires huge changes in how nature works during recorded history.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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?

Lol. Such shameless dishonesty repeated in every post.