Was the Real Flood in Genesis or Gilgamesh?

[Deleted member 619]

What I find really interesting about this is that, included in these legends that you insist all describe the same event (or at least, that's what you have to be insisting in order for this line of argumentation to support your claim, whether or not you actually have the wherewithal to grasp this, which I suspect you don't), you're including Mesoamerican cultures whose existence is pinned down to the 12th century onward.

Once again, do you actually think about the implications of the fuckwitted guff you write prior to posting it? Never come across the principles of proof-reading and fact-checking?

 

[leroy]

I honestly don´t have time to keep up with conversations, I will simply make 2 conclutions.

None of you have been capable of providing an example of a peer review source, that shows how multiple independent radiometric techniques arrive at the same age in a given sample

The fact that multiple sources report the same event proves that the flood is based on a true historical event, this doesn´t prove that the bible is literally true,

 

[Deleted member 619]

None of you have been capable of providing an example of a peer review source, that shows how multiple independent radiometric techniques arrive at the same age in a given sample

Why should they, when nobody made such a fucking claim?

Meanwhile, peer-reviewed evidence for the existence of your masturbation fantasy again?

The fact that multiple sources report the same event proves that the flood is based on a true historical event, this doesn´t prove that the bible is literally true,

Still struggling with basic English? Which bit of 'they're describing multiple events' is failing to penetrate the miasma of what you laughably call thought here?

 

[leroy]

So you believe dragons existed?

No, I belive that different cultures imagined different monsters, that where all later tagged as dragons

I'm assuming you meant 64AD. That said, there is archaeological evidence for the fire in Rome.

aja, for example? please show me the archeological evidnce for the fire in rome


the reason why we know that this event took place is because it is reported by multiple independent sources and you know it

 

[tuxbox]

No, I belive that different cultures imagined different monsters, that where all later tagged as dragons

They also imagined a worldwide flood.

aja, for example? please show me the archeological evidnce for the fire in rome

the reason why we know that this event took place is because it is reported by multiple independent sources and you know it

Here you go.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/great-fire-rome-clues-evidence/1449/

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Aronra:
There are extenuating circumstances, environmental factors that we know can produce a variance, and these can be predicted and accounted for. As Rumraket illustrated, they can also be correlated, corrected, or cross-confirmed by multiple other methods –so that our combined dating systems are reliable. Whereas, the creationist counter-position cannot be substantiated in any way by any means

I challenge anyone to provide a single example where a sample was dated my MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, radiometric methods, all converging to the same result.

Please quote the paper where the dating of a sample was described.

Does it have to be radiometric dating methods only? Can I use other absolute dating methods that cross confirm with radiometric dating?

When multiple independent sources report the same event, it is considered a historical fact, why are you making an arbitrary exception with the flood?

Of all the stories that Moses (or whoever you believe is the author of genesis) could have invented, why did he invent the same flood story that the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Australian, the Mesoamericans, the Native Americans etc. invented?

:facepalm:

You must be new at this. None of the examples you gave above are related to each other, besides a flood occurring. Your first mistake is acting as if just because these myths describe a flood they are some how related to each other. However, a quick reading of any of the flood myths, outside of the Middle East flood, would expose that they are stories of very different events. How the flood starts is different, who survives the flood is different, how people/animals survive the flood is different. The most likely answer to these different flood legends is that local devastating floods happened in each area and were later embellished when the stories were told and retold after generation after generation.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, your understanding of how history works is mistaken. Having multiple independent sources does not make a story true. A prior probability for an outcome has to be known before something that is written down from history can be accepted to be true. No one is treating the flood of Noah any different from any other mythical story. For one easy example, we can look at Alexander the Great. Several independent sources claim he was born from a human mother and a Heavenly Father (a god). However, historians accept the independent sources of Alexander the Great's many conquests, but not one of them accepts his demigod status based on those same sources. Thus, no one is making an arbitrary distinction for the flood of Noah; it is treated just like any other historical text.

When we find this kind of things historians always conclude that the event was based on a historical event, for example Cassius Dio, Suetonius and Tacitus all reported a fire in rome in the year 64BC, since they all reported the same event, it is considered a historical event, no one argues that each of them invented the same story.

I'm assuming you meant 64AD. That said, there is archaeological evidence for the fire in Rome.

Whether or not there is archaeological evidence to support this fire or not, a fire happening in a city is a mundane claim. Thus, a few different sources documenting a fire could suffice to establish a fire happening. However, if said stories included Zeus starting the fire by striking the city with lightening, the cause of the fire would not be taken seriously by historians and probably be concluded as an ad hoc justification for the fire, which was most likely created by the chroniclers. A global flood is not a mundane claim. In order to establish something like that, you need evidence for it outside of stories that could have been easily embellished over time.

So you believe dragons existed?

No, I belive that different cultures imagined different monsters, that where all later tagged as dragons

It amazes me that you are able to conclude this for dragons, yet unable to conclude this for a global flood. Dragons and a global flood are both built on stories that are independent from each other, yet you are able to conclude one is myth and the other is fact. As my citation above shows, any flood myth is widely divergent from the ancient Middle Eastern one and they are all as diverse as the different dragons found across the world. However, please explain to us why the stories about dragons are just imagined monsters, while a global flood is a historical fact when they are both known only from myth and legend handed down over time. How are you able to conclude one is a myth and the other is fact?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The fact that multiple sources report the same event proves that the flood is based on a true historical event

No. It just does not follow.

Why do bible thumpers always end up looking like this to me?

 

[Bango Skank]

I think that no evidence of a firmament ever existing is a enough proof againts biblical flood.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I asked for a peer revied article that describes the actual process of dating, you are just shoing a random image that you took from an anticreationist site….see the difference?

For example the AR AR dating is a relative dating method, which means that you need to know the approximate age of the sample, before dating it. The same might be true with other methods (depends on how the methods where used) this is why a require the actual source.

Actually, I got the book reference from the National Center for Science Education. Do you consider that an "anti-creationist site"?

I put the title of the book above the graphic. It is easy enough to find the actual papers from which the numbers are taken. If I were to find those papers and you confirm that they are peer-reviewed, would it convince you that the table is valid?

As for the "relative" aspect of Ar-Ar dating, I'm pretty sure this means you need a sample with a known age with which to compare it, not that you have to know the age of the primary sample itself.

 

[leroy]

I asked for a peer revied article that describes the actual process of dating, you are just shoing a random image that you took from an anticreationist site….see the difference?

For example the AR AR dating is a relative dating method, which means that you need to know the approximate age of the sample, before dating it. The same might be true with other methods (depends on how the methods where used) this is why a require the actual source.

Actually, I got the book reference from the National Center for Science Education. Do you consider that an "anti-creationist site"?

I put the title of the book above the graphic. It is easy enough to find the actual papers from which the numbers are taken. If I were to find those papers and you confirm that they are peer-reviewed, would it convince you that the table is valid?

As for the "relative" aspect of Ar-Ar dating, I'm pretty sure this means you need a sample with a known age with which to compare it, not that you have to know the age of the primary sample itself.

Well that image is circulating in many anticreationist sites, I made my best guess.
The challenge is to show a sample dated by 2 independent radiometric dating methods, that got consistent results.
You have to show a peer review paper that describes the process of dating.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The challenge is to show a sample dated by 2 independent radiometric dating methods, that got consistent results.You have to show a peer review paper that describes the process of dating.

No, and I've already explained why. Your repeating of this tired mantra won't magically make it true. We don't have to show a sample dated using more than one method, we only need show that the methods themselves have been calibrated to give a clear and reliable picture, and that's been done in spades.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance are not valid arguments.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I put the title of the book above the graphic. It is easy enough to find the actual papers from which the numbers are taken. If I were to find those papers and you confirm that they are peer-reviewed, would it convince you that the table is valid?

As for the "relative" aspect of Ar-Ar dating, I'm pretty sure this means you need a sample with a known age with which to compare it, not that you have to know the age of the primary sample itself.

The challenge is to show a sample dated by 2 independent radiometric dating methods, that got consistent results.
You have to show a peer review paper that describes the process of dating.

You didn't answer my question. The table (and the NCSE article from which it comes) claims that one of these samples was dated by four identified methods and the results were consistent.

Do you agree that is what it says? If it were demonstrated that the sources of the values for this table were peer-reviewed, would you accept its findings?

Also, I assume you accept that you were wrong about Ar-Ar dating.

 

[SpecialFrog]

No, and I've already explained why. Your repeating of this tired mantra won't magically make it true. We don't have to show a sample dated using more than one method, we only need show that the methods themselves have been calibrated to give a clear and reliable picture, and that's been done in spades.

To be fair, the claim is often made that when multiple dating methods can be used they agree with each other (possibly in an Aaron Ra video referenced earlier in the thread).

I agree that the evidence for dating methods is strong enough that this is not necessary in order to be convinced.

However, I question leroy's ability to assess the supporting papers beyond confirming their existence.

 

[Deleted member 619]

To be fair, the claim is often made that when multiple dating methods can be used they agree with each other (possibly in an Aaron Ra video referenced earlier in the thread).

I think that context is important here. For example, we can say that dates given by dendrochronology overlap with the lower end of the radiometric spectrum, so that both methods return the same dates, but one of those methods is inherent in the material being dated, so you won't find an instance of a sample of material that's been independently dated using two different methods because dendrochronology isn't independent. For the rest, one method has been calibrated using another, employing areas of overlap.

The point here is that the apologist thinks he's got some marvellously original and damning point in his hand, but if he looked down, he'd find that he's only holding the wrong end of the stick.

However, I question leroy's ability to assess the supporting papers beyond confirming their existence.

I don't question it, because questioning it would require that it exist in some measure, and it clearly doesn't.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well that image is circulating in many anticreationist sites, I made my best guess.

:lol:

The delusions creationists possess are only topped by their ignorance. What you mean by "anti-creationist" sites are simply pro-science sites. Scientists and science proponents only promote science on those websites. It is not their fault that creationism is a pseudoscience, thus the mere fact that promoting science will go against it. However, keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear, dandan leroy, in order to keep that doublethink from becoming cognitive dissonance.

 

[leroy]

Well that image is circulating in many anticreationist sites, I made my best guess.

:lol:

The delusions creationists possess are only topped by their ignorance. What you mean by "anti-creationist" sites are simply pro-science sites. Scientists and science proponents only promote science on those websites. It is not their fault that creationism is a pseudoscience, thus the mere fact that promoting science will go against it. However, keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear, dandan leroy, in order to keep that doublethink from becoming cognitive dissonance.

An anti creationist site, is simply a site dedicated to refute creationist claims, these site may or may not be correct and may or may not be scientific. But they would still be anticreationist sites.

 

[Inferno]

An anti creationist site, is simply a site dedicated to refute creationist claims, these site mayo r may not be correct and mayo or may not be scientific. But they would still be anticreationist sites.

I protest. There are scientific sites, then there's anti-scientific sites (creationist sites) and then there's sites correcting the anti-scientific sites. Being anti-creationism is just common sense.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The delusions creationists possess are only topped by their ignorance. What you mean by "anti-creationist" sites are simply pro-science sites. Scientists and science proponents only promote science on those websites. It is not their fault that creationism is a pseudoscience, thus the mere fact that promoting science will go against it. However, keep telling yourself whatever you need to hear, dandan leroy, in order to keep that doublethink from becoming cognitive dissonance.

Calilasseia nailed the aetiology of this beautifully, by pointing out that creationists think that science is a branch of apologetics. That's really what it amounts to, and is why they see pro-science sites as anti-cretinism. Reality, of course, is the same, hence arch-fuckwit Henry Morris' famous arse-gravy to the effect that if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

 

[leroy]

SpecialFrog, You didn't answer my question. The table (and the NCSE article from which it comes) claims that one of these samples was dated by four identified methods and the results were consistent.

Do you agree that is what it says? If it were demonstrated that the sources of the values for this table were peer-reviewed, would you accept its findings?

Also, I assume you accept that you were wrong about Ar-Ar dating.

Abut Ar-Ar, What I meant is that you need a sample with known age in order to calculate the AR-AR age, meaning that the method is not independent.
For example you can´t measure a sample with AR-AR and K-AR and claim that you used 2 independent methods, because they are not independent form each other.



Again in order to answer to the challenge you need to provide a source that describes the process of dating, If your source simply asserts that the dates where consistent, then I would not count it.

Why are you having so many problems in presenting a source? I mean when creationists say that radiometric dating shows inconsistent results the usually can provide dozens of examples, why can´t you provide 1 single source?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I mean when creationists say that radiometric dating shows inconsistent results the usually can provide dozens of examples, why can´t you provide 1 single source?

Bet you can't provide even one example that I can't deal with by virtue of actually understanding how radiometric dating works. That's the difference between understanding the science and merely using it for apologetic purposes.

As for your request, you seem to be having trouble seeing the posts in which I already demolished this bollocks.