Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
More Points

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on May 9, 2002 04:16:13 UTC

"if somebody can disprove 1 part of the Bible or any other religous book, then the rest of the book can't be trusted.

Yep. Which is why you would probably consider me an atheist (though Harv and Aurino would probably disagree) Which is why I will be interested to see your replies to my more general issues. Geology is fun, and all, but not my forte in the least.

Based on typical population growth rates one would need a total of 8 people 4400 years ago to acheive current population figures. If you had more the world would have a much greater number of people on this planet.

I assume you arrive at this number by using the law of uninhibited growth? It would work as long as lifespans remain constant and growth remains uninhibited. But that's not really the case, at least in ancient history. Nature was quite cruel to the ancients.

What I mean is this no one is quite sure how much carbon was in something to start with

Absolutely incorrect. Throughout an organism's life, it has a set ratio of C14 to C12 (I want to say one in a billion but I'm not sure.) When the creature dies, C14 decays into nitrogen, and is never replaced by more C14 (because the metabolic processes needed to do so are nonfunctional.) So, we can infer how much C14 was there upon the creature's death.

But, there are two important things to say regarding radiometric dating. First, carbon has a relatively short half-life (about 5000 years.) So it's very inaccurate, especially for long time periods, due to decay and contamination. Which is why we use more stable isotopes for long range measurements such as potassium and uranium (U238- 4 billion year half-life). Now, you may say "well, these samples may be contaminated too" and that would be true if we were snatching it out of the air, but we're not. We find great samples of uncorrupted uranium in igneous rock. That's how our long-range dating is done: measuring uranium in igneous strata, and using that data to extrapolate the age of sedimentary layers in between layers of igneous rock. So, if you carbon-date a dinosaur bone, sure, it will be way off. But that's not the same tactic we use for old stuff.

"The pyramids were built after the flood."

The pyramids, ancient Mayan civilization, ancient Chinese civilization, the Sumerians, everyone, after the flood, eh? My my my those were some busy ancients. Bear in mind that we're only talking about a few people at first, if indeed Noah and his family were the only humans on the planet. They must have been doing some hasty copulating to get the population high enough to produce so many great ancient civilizations in so short a time. Do you really think that with the natural spread of the population, they reached south America and created the Incan empire (with an ENOURMOUS population, I might add)in a measly couple thousand years? Human populations do NOT spread that fast historically, especially not from one family. By the way, where are the signs of civilizations wiped out by the flood? All destroyed? In that case, wouldn't all flora on the planet be destroyed as well? No plants, no trees, etc? How did they eat?

"the Great Pyramid wasn't built by the Egyptians. First look at the internal structure: An easy wide path DOWN into the queens chamber, but a hard narrow path UP to the empty kings chamber. The kings chamber also has 12 chambers above it or "following it.""

Why does this indicate it was not built by Egyptians, who do you think built it, and what does it have to do with your argument?

"the hindu thing relies on carbon dating"

No it doesn't. It has to do with the historical records of the Hindus themselves. When Britain first colonized India, before radiometric dating was concievable, they suppressed the heretical religion because its own records predated the assumed date of the christian CREATION. Not just the flood. We're talking a monstrously old religion here.

"the ledgends aren't just similar they are almost identical."

Give me specific examples/links.

"The lake would be huge and would have lasted for maybe weeks also realize that the canyon material would still have to be "soft" (from the flood) for this to work."

Where is the dried lake? It should be perfectly detectable. The desert is full of dried lake and river beds.

Anyway, I am enjoying this, but I would be interested in hearing what you think about other points as well: http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/17038.shtml

These points, I think, shatter the biblical account into small fragments and then shatter the fragments.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins