Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, here we go with your bologna.

Show me where I said the Asians came from Ham.

The consensus of opinion is that the Asians came from Japheth.

So I'll go with that for now.

You are very good at misquoting me.

Very good.

You said, and I quote: "The Chinese came from Ham, but the others I don't know."

Which makes no sense regardless. One group of Asians came from Ham but the others came from Japheth? What, did Ham get lazy and ask Japheth to take over, or was it the other way around?

 

[Hans Blaster]

All I am seeing here are more claims, and what they demonstrate, is that that is all you have.

It's odd how you've never discussed any of my actual criticisms of the articles and claims you posted. (OK, not that odd for someone attacking a science.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You said, and I quote: "The Chinese came from Ham, but the others I don't know."

That's right.

And you changed it to I saying all the Asians came from Ham.

Now you're confused, and you want me to sort it out.

Which makes no sense regardless.

Of course it doesn't.

You have once again tied yourself into a mental knot.

One group of Asians came from Ham but the others came from Japheth?

Sounds plausible.

What, did Ham get lazy and ask Japheth to take over, or was it the other way around?

This is the way around it was:

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

Noah → Ham → Canaan → Sinites (Chinese)

 

[dlamberth]

If you are joining @dlamberth's discussion of the dating of of a few samples of organic material used to pin down the Missoula Floods at the end of the last glacial period which occurred 10-15,000 years ago, that is okay, but I took everything she said into consideration, which includes carbon 14 dating, and if that is not relevant, then I don't know what we are discussing.

You are wrong. Organic matter was not used to "pin" down the dates. That's your biased assumption which is totally wrong. I could smell your preparation to attack radiocarbon dating a mile away. But you need to know that the dates were first determined by ash from Mt St. Helens and Glacier Peak and NOT radiocarbon dating. The organic mater aquired in one of the silt levels is a more resent find. That along with the newer technology of surface exposure dating and the earler dating of ash from different volcanic erruptions have brought together several directions in which to verify dates.

 

[CoreyD]

Panthers, nice to meet you.

I believe your information is incorrect here.

It should go like this:

Shem = Jews & Indians
Ham = Africans (including Egyptians)
Japheth = Europeans

Not necessarily AV.
Remember that all the genes to make the different races were all mixed into one man - Adam.
So, it really does not matter who came out of Adam. We would still have all the races of mankind... even if it were just Noah himself.

Acts 17:26
And He made from one man every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth, having determined the appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

 

[CoreyD]

You are wrong. Organic matter was not used to "pin" down the dates. That's your biased assumption which is totally wrong. I could smell your preparation to attack radiocarbon dating a mile away. But you need to know that the dates were first determined by ash from Mt St. Helens and Glacier Peak and NOT radiocarbon dating. The organic mater aquired in one of the silt levels is a more resent find. That along with the newer technology of surface exposure dating and the earler dating of ash from different volcanic erruptions have brought together several directions in which to verify dates.

You said nothing about layers in your post, and a stick they found?
The newer technology is what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not necessarily AV.

Okay.

Remember that all the genes to make the different races were all mixed into one man - Adam.

Okay.

So, it really does not matter who came out of Adam.

Okay.

We would still have all the races of mankind... even if it were just Noah himself.

No argument there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's right.

And you changed it to I saying all the Asians came from Ham.

Now you're confused, and you want me to sort it out.



Of course it doesn't.

You have once again tied yourself into a mental knot.



Sounds plausible.



This is the way around it was:

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Genesis 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,

Noah → Ham → Canaan → Sinites (Chinese)

The Chinese are Asian. It's weird as all heck to say that one son begat one group of Asians while another begat all the rest, based on your own faulty reading of the Bible.

Sinite doesn't mean Chinese. Sinite means clayey; muddy; miry; hateful passions; bloody dispositions; bloodshed; rage; combat (wow that got a bit nasty towards the end). And since the Sinite in the Bible are a group who came from Canaanites, that means they decidedly were not Asian but would still have been Middle Eastern. Near Middle Eastern (NME) too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You said nothing about layers in your post, and a stick they found?
The newer technology is what?

A lecture detailing the dating processes was posted a few pages back. A lecture given by someone who lives in and teaches specifically the geology of Eastern Washington.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Chinese are Asian. It's weird as all heck to say that one son begat one group of Asians while another begat all the rest, based on your own faulty reading of the Bible.

Sinite doesn't mean Chinese. Sinite means clayey; muddy; miry; hateful passions; bloody dispositions; bloodshed; rage; combat (wow that got a bit nasty towards the end). And since the Sinite in the Bible are a group who came from Canaanites, that means they decidedly were not Asian but would still have been Middle Eastern. Near Middle Eastern (NME) too.

Are we done now?

Anything else I can't help you with?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are we done now?

Anything else I can't help you with?

Yeah, we're done.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, we're done.

Good.

Now that you have misquoted me and tied yourself up in knots as usual, have a great day.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good.

Now that you have misquoted me and tied yourself up in knots as usual, have a great day.

But I didn't.

 

[dlamberth]

You said nothing about layers in your post, and a stick they found?
The newer technology is what?

If you had watched the video I posted you would not be asking these questions.

The silt layers were left from the multiple floods that occurred during the thousands of years of reoccurring floods. I very briefly touched on them in post #249. In that post I also brought up surface exposure dating (geochronological) technology. Google it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I didn't.

Learning theology is a drag, isn't it?

All academia does is teach people to misquote, misunderstand, and misconstrue others, doesn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Learning theology is a drag, isn't it?

All academia does is teach people to misquote, misunderstand, and misconstrue others, doesn't it?

... there's really no way I can respond to that without breaking forum rules to some degree, I have to admit.

 

[sjastro]

Since genetics has crept into this thread, what does the science say?

Scenario (1) Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race.
In this case our mitochondrial DNA should be traced back to Eve and the Y-DNA to Seth who had children.

Scenario (2) Noah and his sons are the progenitors.
Here the mitochondrial DNA would be traced back to Noah's wife and Y-DNA to anyone of Noah's sons.

Of course we can't test this as we don't have the DNA of any of the Biblical characters mentioned who probably were fictional.

It is the observed genetic diversity of the human race which contradicts our origins according to the Bible.
There would not have been enough time for the diversity to develop in the few thousand years which have elapsed from Adam or Noah.

 

[CoreyD]

A lecture detailing the dating processes was posted a few pages back. A lecture given by someone who lives in and teaches specifically the geology of Eastern Washington.

Does it really matter?
Because one believes something does it mean it is true?

Is it Recalibration. More accurate does not mean accurate. It just means an improvement over less accurate.
The thing about science, is, it does not say models and estimations acquired through various methods and models are a done deal - having no limitation, and room for improvement, or correction.
People clamoring against the Bible do that.

On recalibration, here is what the honest scientist tells us.

The end result better captures, for example, an incident 40,000 years ago when a drop in the Earth’s magnetic field resulted in more carbon-14. The 2013 curve’s carbon-14 peak for this event was too low and too old by 500 years, says Reimer. That has been fixed.​

​

Adding more data also, ironically, has created a wider error bar for some parts of history, because some labs and tree records disagree with each other. ‘Greater precision has created greater uncertainty, you could say,’ says Manning. ‘If you throw more and more evidence in, you end up with more noise.’​

​

In some spots, the calibration line flattens, or moves around a lot, creating multiple possible answers for the same radiocarbon reading. For the Minoan eruption on Thera, for example, the more detailed curve around 1500–1600BC now provides five different possible date ranges for the timing of that event.​

​

There is still room for improvement though. Manning argues that there are already some high-precision datasets that show regional differences not covered by IntCal’s whole-hemisphere approach. ‘About half the group agrees, and half doesn’t,’ he laughs. ‘Of course, the next curve will be even better. It’s an iterative thing.’​

It's odd how you've never discussed any of my actual criticisms of the articles and claims you posted. (OK, not that odd for someone attacking a science.)

I'm sorry you feel that way.
I understand though that bias is at the helm of these remarks, since pointing out the limitations of science is not an attack on science.

If there was any truth to that, thousands of scientists would be guilty of attacking science, since they not only point out the limitations of science, but actually criticize the beliefs that are adopted by some scientist, which are, driven by... putting it in their own words - hubris, or "big heads".... thinking they know everything, or that everything they believe is true, and should not be challenged.

It's sad that actually goes on, but we know how it is with human nature.

Your "criticism" actually ignored what was said, while you picked out certain pieces that changed nothing about what was the actual point - Radiocarbon dating / carbon 14 dating is not accurate, and is off marks sometimes by thousands of years.

If you actually have something that refutes that, all it takes is... One paper; One link to that paper; One post with that link, and the statement(s), supporting your claim.
If that is hard for you to do, why would you want me to respond to unsupported claims?

Scientist readily admit limitations in methods and models used in science.
After all, they recognize that they were not in the past, but are trying to piece it together with what they have.

For example, though they said researchers retraced a woolly mammoth’s steps 17,000 years after it died, they admitted this:
There are also limits to what can be determined from a single mammoth’s tusks

The methods they use may be good... for now, but does that mean they are the best, and can never be improved, revealing more than "scientist thought"/"scientist believe"?
By no means.

Would atheists ever accept that is how science works, or does science only work the way they accept?

 

[Astrid]

Since genetics has crept into this thread, what does the science say?

Scenario (1) Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race.
In this case our mitochondrial DNA should be traced back to Eve and the Y-DNA to Seth who had children.

Scenario (2) Noah and his sons are the progenitors.
Here the mitochondrial DNA would be traced back to Noah's wife and Y-DNA to anyone of Noah's sons.

Of course we can't test this as we don't have the DNA of any of the Biblical characters mentioned who probably were fictional.

It is the observed genetic diversity of the human race which contradicts our origins according to the Bible.
There would not have been enough time for the diversity to develop in the few thousand years which have elapsed from Adam or Noah.

much is “ explained” by hyper -evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Does it really matter?
Because one believes something does it mean it is true?

What does belief have to do with any of this? (And you continued deflection from actual information about the actual dating of the Missoula floods [the actual subject of this thread] is quite telling.)

Is it Recalibration. More accurate does not mean accurate. It just means an improvement over less accurate.
The thing about science, is, it does not say models and estimations acquired through various methods and models are a done deal - having no limitation, and room for improvement, or correction.

What you are doing is just claiming (without evidence) that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate.

People clamoring against the Bible do that.

The bible is irrelevant to this topic.

On recalibration, here is what the honest scientist tells us.

The end result better captures, for example, an incident 40,000 years ago when a drop in the Earth’s magnetic field resulted in more carbon-14. The 2013 curve’s carbon-14 peak for this event was too low and too old by 500 years, says Reimer. That has been fixed.​

​

Adding more data also, ironically, has created a wider error bar for some parts of history, because some labs and tree records disagree with each other. ‘Greater precision has created greater uncertainty, you could say,’ says Manning. ‘If you throw more and more evidence in, you end up with more noise.’​

​

In some spots, the calibration line flattens, or moves around a lot, creating multiple possible answers for the same radiocarbon reading. For the Minoan eruption on Thera, for example, the more detailed curve around 1500–1600BC now provides five different possible date ranges for the timing of that event.​

​

There is still room for improvement though. Manning argues that there are already some high-precision datasets that show regional differences not covered by IntCal’s whole-hemisphere approach. ‘About half the group agrees, and half doesn’t,’ he laughs. ‘Of course, the next curve will be even better. It’s an iterative thing.’​

The thing about this recalibration of the radiocarbon dating is that it is something they keep doing to make it better. They do it to get better and more accurate results from radiocarbon. They do it to incorporate more information. This recalibration doesn't move the radiocarbon originated dates related to the Missoula floods. There is a reason dates are typically given in "radiocarbon years" when reporting a measurement and that is because the calibrations do change (between radiocarbon years and actual years) and when there is a new calibration, earlier published dates can be quickly translated with the new calibration.

I'm sorry you feel that way.
I understand though that bias is at the helm of these remarks, since pointing out the limitations of science is not an attack on science.

This isn't about how I feel. I have seen many a person attack a result, method, paper, dataset, or even a whole field of science because the conclusions from it challenged their personally held beliefs in politics, theology, or philosophy. You are not the first nor (sadly) will you be the last. I am well aware of the limitations of science generally and have some understanding about the limits of radiocarbon dating. I know the difference between an honest critique and an ideologically motivated attack.

If there was any truth to that, thousands of scientists would be guilty of attacking science, since they not only point out the limitations of science, but actually criticize the beliefs that are adopted by some scientist, which are, driven by... putting it in their own words - hubris, or "big heads".... thinking they know everything, or that everything they believe is true, and should not be challenged.

See there you go again.

It's sad that actually goes on, but we know how it is with human nature.

Your "criticism" actually ignored what was said, while you picked out certain pieces that changed nothing about what was the actual point - Radiocarbon dating / carbon 14 dating is not accurate, and is off marks sometimes by thousands of years.

If you actually have something that refutes that, all it takes is... One paper; One link to that paper; One post with that link, and the statement(s), supporting your claim.
If that is hard for you to do, why would you want me to respond to unsupported claims?

You have already linked the papers that demonstrate that you are wrong. You could respond to my criticism of your selection by trying to show that I am wrong about one of those papers, but instead you post a few more "examples" of how radiocarbon is "wrong". Pick one of the articles or papers you posted and I commented about and reply to my comments on them using the contents of the paper/article in question. That's what you could do if you want an actual discussion of your claim.

Scientist readily admit limitations in methods and models used in science.
After all, they recognize that they were not in the past, but are trying to piece it together with what they have.

I have been well aware of this for a quarter century.

For example, though they said researchers retraced a woolly mammoth’s steps 17,000 years after it died, they admitted this:
There are also limits to what can be determined from a single mammoth’s tusks

An interesting article and result, but it has nothing to do with the reliability of radiocarbon dating. The main result is about tracing the eating range of the mammoth through the variations of non-carbon isotopes deposited in the tusk as the mammoth ate in places with different isotopic ratios in the soil and deposited those elements in the tusk as it grew.

The methods they use may be good... for now, but does that mean they are the best, and can never be improved, revealing more than "scientist thought"/"scientist believe"?
By no means.

This is why I don't like to use the word "believe" at all in anything I publish.

Would atheists ever accept that is how science works, or does science only work the way they accept?

Atheists have nothing to do with this. It isn't about who believes in god or not. Don't try to make it so.