These beautiful fossils on sale at Arrowtown, New Zealand, were buried in Madagascar during the Zenithic phase of Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago. (Click image to enlarge.)
Well, that is not what the sign says (there are a few problems with that sign). Not many people would make the connection with Noah’s Flood because of the handwritten date on the card. If the fossils are 120 million years old then they would have nothing to do with Noah.
But most people don’t realise that these dates are not scientifically measured but chosen to agree with the long-age uniformitarian philosophy (see Dating secrets). You never find these ages justified in any of the signs and posters that you read at these tourist places. The ages are just stated as a fact and almost everyone accepts them without question.
So I have stated here that the fossils were buried during the Zenithic phase of Noah’s Flood, which was just 4,500 years ago. I have researched the Cretaceous in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Northern Territory and concluded that it was deposited during the Zenithic phase (See my article on the Great Artesian Basin). These ammonite fossils are likely to have been deposited about the same time, as the floodwaters were rising and nearing their peak.
Don’t you think the fossil shells are spectacular in their design, beauty and appearance? The polished surfaces reveal the elaborate sutures, which mark the positions of the internal chambers of the shell. You must admit the shells are beautifully preserved, almost as if they were deposited yesterday!
Tricia Van Emmerik
impressive! brings to mind material I’ve seen by Jonathan Gray – Spirial Adventure – I’m sure you’re aware of info.
regards
Tricia & Hank
FRANK SHERWIN
http://www.icr.org/article/ammonite-evolution/
Wynand
I believe these fossils are 4,500 years old and not millions of years. But as you said the millions of years stated in the sign can not be substantiated (was not dated), how can you substantiate your 4,500 years with quantitative measurements? I have quickly looked at your model, but this still seems to be just a model and not quantitative proof?
Tas Walker
Wynand, dozens of articles linked here provide quantitative evidence for a young earth. Such evidence for a young earth relies on assumptions about past history, which is why those who dispute the young age dispute the assumptions. The point is that the age of the earth is not a scientific measurement but an argument based on assumptions. In other words, the whole issue is open for debate and the first question that needs to be addressed is, “How do you know?” In fact, the only reliable way of establishing the age of anything is by the historical method, on the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses. We can determine the age of the earth and the 4,500-year date for the ammonite fossils using this method (see biblical chronology).
Give me a break
Grow up. Fossil zones are reliably dated using multiple radiometric measures. Just because the seller of these fossils couldn’t answer your questions doesn’t proof your creationist claim. Btw, Ussher established the 6000 year old earth hypothesis by adding up the ages of biblical figures. People don’t have a child and then immediately die. ussher was wrong on ANYONE’s terms.
Tas Walker
Give me a break: You need to realise that radioactive dating is not objective, observational science but based on assumption and subjective interpretation. Check for example Dating secrets. Ussher was a brilliant scholar and used the historical information in the Bible including the ages of the patriarchs upon the birth of their sons to develop his chronology. Read some of the original documentation in Genesis 5 and 11 to see how it works. Also, see the article Biblical chronogenealogies to get an idea of the reliability of the historical records in the Bible.
Give me a break
Radiometric dating IS objective. To propose that uniformitarianism doesn’t hold is to bind yourself to some pretty silly consequences. As I have stated, geology dates rocks by multiple radiometric measures and these measures AGREE. To state that radiation has behaved differently in the past means that you need to explain how it has varied in a UNIFORM manner. A claim far more radical than your fundemental claim. Radiometric dating of zones is also corroborated by genetic studies, you need to account for how these other multiple measures could vary UNIFORMLY for your un-uniform radioactivity-over-time hypothesis to work. Where is your evidence? Your reason to believe? Or does it just rest on your wishes? I would like to be rich, but I am not. Wishes do not make reality.
Your claim about Usssher is false. His methodology was fundamentally flawed in so many ways it is embarrassing to know that there are still people who believe it. He CHOSE the birth date of Jesus, he didn’t find it anywhere. How scholarly is that? In addition, he selectively ignored the differing ancestry of the line leading to Jesus as cited in the bible. And this is in addition to methodological flaw he made in adding up the ages I indicated in my earlier post.
Tas Walker
Give me a break: Your assertion about Ussher’s methodology is wrong. Just check the genealogical accounts in Genesis 5 & 11 and you would see they are constructed in such a way as to record the elapsed years unambiguously, quite different from what you previously said.
And if you checked a few articles about how radioactive dating works, such as Dating secrets or Dating Q&A you would understand how subjective the methods are.
bill s.
As a student of geology and paleontology; I am becoming more sensitive to a young Earth. There are many places I have visited in my life that are examples of flood geology (e.g. Grand Canyon)and my own research into petrified wood and sandstone sedimentation bear witness. YES–I can observe 6,000-7,000 year old geology. NO–I cannot grasp 1.7564 billion year old granites!!
Gordon
If they are 4500 why are there no non-fossil examples such as from archaelogical sites like shell middens. they always will be filled with sedimentary rock. Ammonites have hundreds of species and are found all over the world (i have found the myself: see moeraki boulders thread) but they are extinct now : you will never find them in young loose sand and never in the same layer as that of human artefacts. -And they dont look like they were buried yesterday! they are semi transparent meaning they have been filled with calcium carbonate. and there is no actual shell left- they are casts made of limey sediment- you can see the grey sediment.
Why did dinosaurs not get on Noahs Ark? was there no room left? “No, Im sorry, Ultrasaurus, But Im afraid we’re full up. We had to put the Woolly Mammoths on the top deck as it is”
And what do creationists think about dinosaurs in general? And please dont tell me they are a hoax. I have seen a near complete plesiosaur skeleton still in the rock 10kms south of Moeraki in NZ. I have found extinct fossils and giant extinct sharks’ teeth. And Bones of Giant 8ft hight pengiun. Again, Why are there no non fossil dinosaur bones? and why are none found alongside human sites or in the same layer?
Please just forget the bible and LOOK. I just dont like to see people wasting thier lives believing they are going to go 2 hell if they do the “wrong” thing. The God u believe in can see everything and know everything. He can understand why u do this or that and he already knows what decisions you will make. A god like this would never punish someone- for any reason. U cant have Love, forgiveness on one hand and hell on the other. They r mutually exclusive terms.
Tas Walker
Hi Gordon:
You can find the answers to your questions at Creation.com. Use the search box.
1. Not sure what you mean by your archaeology question. Do a search on “archaeology” or “Egypt” or “Pyramids”.
2. Do a search on “fossil distribution”, “Wollemi pine”, “coelacanth” or “living fossils” for articles about fossil distribution.
3. Petrification can happen much faster than most people imagine. Search on “rapid rock” or “petrification”.
4. Dinosaurs did go on Noah’s Ark and survived the Flood. Search on “dinosaurs” to see how the Bible makes good sense of them. Especially search on “blood cells” and “soft tissue”.
5. The Bible records the history of God’s dealings with mankind. It’s not a fairy story but reliable history as has been confirmed over and over again. Check it out.
6. Hell exists because there are people who are rebels against God’s authority and who would destroy heaven. Hell exists because God is love and he has determined to make heaven a place where righteousness abounds. God’s love is unconditional; he loves everyone. But God’s forgiveness is conditional; the rebel must turn from his rebellion against God and his law and accept the forgiveness that God has provided in Jesus Christ. The political row over Guantanamo Bay illustrates what is going on. Many would love to let all the prisoners go but there is a problem; they are still committed to killing Americans. If the prisoners simply changed their minds and were no longer a risk they could be released. It’s the same with the ruler of the universe. He requires us to repent (change our minds about our rebellion) and trust him, otherwise for the best interests of the universe we must be locked away.
All the best.
Gordon
“Hell exists because God is love” “God’s love is unconditional; But God’s forgiveness is conditional”
🙂 hello!?
Ok, Im sorry I asked : ) ..Its like me telling you 2 go and look up Darwin(Peace be unto him 🙂 websites.
Guantanamo Bay(and hell too) – it would at least be nice to have it without the all the torturing/eternal fire.
Thanks anyway for the reply. Was just trying to point some things out. just trying to help. But I was just wasting your/my time. Oil/Water, Day/Night etc etc
Give me a break
Don’t waste your time arguing with this guy. He is just like all the other fundamentalists. Will not accept it even when it is right under his nose. Radio metric dating is NOT subjective. Any attempt to make you believe this is a direct lie and staggers beliefe that the individual concerned promotes themselves as ethical.
1. The bible is wrong. it is pure fiction. Any walk though this fairy tale book will convince you of it, there is no real need to look at other evidence that contradicts it.
2. There is no reason to even suppose the existance of a deity or deities. Belief defies rationality in this case. Where did the deity come from?? That is always the fatal question.
3. Young Earth??? There is NO evidence what so ever for this. Only perverted and wishful thinking from those who refuse to let go of irrational and childish beliefs.
4. Religion only survives because it twists the mind of the young and vulnerable, and appeals to ignorance and bigotry. It is outdated and dead, let it go.
Tas Walker
Give me a break: You said, “dating is NOT subjective”. Can’t you see the difference between making measurements in the present (length, chemical composition, counting tree rings, etc.) and telling a story about the unobserved past?
1. “The bible is wrong. it is pure fiction.” Nonsense! You are making rash assertions. Are you unaware of how the Bible stands up to testing for accuracy of transmission, internal consistency and external collaboration? Read some articles on it, e.g. http://www.appiusforum.com/bible.html
2. “There is no reason to even suppose the existance of a deity” Yes there is! Design points to a designer. The world displays overwhelming evidence to design. Enough to convince former atheist Antony Flew. Even Richard Dawkins on the movie “Expelled” admitted that life exhibited design. You ask “Where did the deity come from?” The atheists often come up with that kindergarten response. No one made God. He is eternal.
3. No evidence for a young earth? There is abundant evidence for catastrophe in geology. Abundant! Catastrophe means things did not take much time. It’s those who believe in millions of years who have the problem. Where do they insert all that time?
4. “Religion twists the mind of the young. (my paraphrase)”. Define your terms. The Bible is strongly against religion, i.e. against man-made religions. E.g. Psalm 96:5: “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.”
You need to learn to tell the difference and not lump them together. We are talking about truth and reality, not a human invention.
Nicholas
I find it amusing that “give me a break” provides no intelligent or scientific discussion to support his claim that radiometric dating is an accurate measurement of the age of a rock (igneous rock). He clearly does not understand the important assumptions that control different types of radiometric dating. And we all know what they say about assumptions…”give me a break” should spend some time studying magmatic processes and igneous rock formation before engaging in a debate about radiometric dating.
bob
Several points here. I’ll discuss a link you’ve mentioned several times instead of digging through all of them. You explain in your article concerning radiometric dating that if geologists receive an age which disagrees with previous work done on an area or stratum that they will try to explain the age rather than question the date. This is not true. I have several colleagues that receive ambiguous or unexplained dates from some material (particularly carbon in more recent lake material). It is true that if a logical explanation is available they will look into that possibility. A more likely scenario is that publishing those dates will be held off until more samples can be analyzed and the machinery can be verified. If the machinery works, and the laws of physics (which govern radiometric decay) remain constant then the alternate date must be accepted and the previous work is called into question.
I won’t get into all of the issues discussed earlier, but I think Gordon’s question deserves clarification. You responded in your (1) concerning the co-occurrence of archaeological artifacts and fossil material by telling him to google Pyramids and Egypt and Archaeology. None of these searches turn up clear evidence from any scientific literature of any school of though that places human artifacts with demonstrably extinct organisms.
For example, There are no occurrences of Isotelus and human buildings or pot shards.
Tas Walker
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your comment. You said, ” … they will try to explain the age rather than question the date. This is not true.”
The way it works is that they try to make sense of their date within their interpretive framework. There are lots of possibilities. If the other dates in the area are firmly established they will explain away their date as I have previously mentioned and leave the other dates unchallenged. However, if they think they can challenge one or more of the other dates then they may give a reason why a previously published date is incorrect and why their date should be accepted instead.
You also said, “A more likely scenario is that publishing those dates will be held off until more samples can be analyzed …” Further samples may give extra options that can be used in developing explanations. And there are lots of dates that never get published because they take too much effort to interpret and other projects take priority.
Further, you said, “I think Gordon’s question deserves clarification.” Thanks, I agree. Rereading his comment, I think he is asking why archeological fossils look fresh and unaltered but ammonite fossils are chemically altered such as being replaced with calcium carbonate. These changes happen because the ammonite is buried in sediment that containes aggressive fluids which react chemically with the shell. It is not so much a matter of time or age but of chemical conditions, such as pressure and chemical composition.
Give me a break
Nicholas, I very well understand the basis, what you would call ‘assumptions’, about radiometric dating. Everyone with any shred of scientific background does. These ‘assumptions’ are founded in the principle of uniformitarianism. The most basic assumption that guides everything. ie coffee tases the same today as it did yesterday. Hot water will burn just as it did yesterday. Understand? The same nuclear forces operate now as they did when the rocks were formed. This allows us to determine the starting composition of the rocks. Secondly, radiometrics confirm each other. If you could be bothered to think over this for a while you would arrive at the obvious conclusion that it is unlikely to the tune of astronomical figures that this could just happen. It would mean miracles upon miracles upon miracles. Try reading a basic science text on the subject and get your head out of the fictional book.
Don’t know why I bother with you flat-Earthers. Read and think about conclusions, don’t just shape the evidence to fit what you want to believe and pass it off as rational.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a Break. Uniformitarianism does not just assume that the laws of science were the same in the past as they are today, it assumes the global Flood as documented in the Bible never happened. The Flood means that geology happened quickly, which destroys the idea of an old earth. And the radioactive dates do not all agree as you think. To start with, most samples are “dated” using only one method because it would cost too much to used many methods. Then, the “dates” are always interpreted: i.e. the assumptions are changed to make the result agree with the big picture story. Did you read the article Dating secrets, which explains how this happens? And that is never the final story. Other scientists may reject the interpretation if they don’t like it. The article on dating Mungo man shows how this works with a real live example.
Moshe
Saddam Hussein couldn’t convince President Bush he didn’t have any WMD’s- short of digging up every square foot of Iraqi soil. In like manner, those who believe in the Bible flood story will never be convinced by any scientific proof that the flood never happend. If you can’t prove to me it didn’t happen, then it must have happened just as the Bible said. UfO’s/alien abductions? If you can’t prove they didn’t happen, then it must be true. Fairies? -can you prove they don’t exist? Well, they must be be hiding from you, not me- they’re real! Jesus is coming back, he said he would almost 2000 years ago, the Bible says so, so it must be true, because the Bible says so- just keep waiting and waiting. See, it’s not hard to prove Biblegod is true.
Tas Walker
Hi Moshe: No, we accept the biblical account of the Flood because there is lots of evidence, not because there is no evidence. Here is a sample of evidence:
1. The Bible is evidence. The Bible has been found to be historically reliable in other areas, so it is reasonable to consider the account of the Flood may be reliable too.
2. The account is plausible. The detail it gives has the ring of history.
3. The account is collaborated by similar accounts from other cultures—Flood legends and traditions.
4. Our planet is the only one with such abundant evidence of a global flood. 70% is still covered with water, which could engulf the planet to an average depth of 3 km if the surface topography was evened out. Most rocks exposed on the continents are sedimentary, having been laid down by water.
5. Abundant fossils buried in the sedimentary rocks. Fossils speak of rapid burial, of catastrophe.
People do not connect geological evidence with Noah’s Flood because they uncritically accept the dates that are quoted, not realizing that all dates are based on assumptions and developed to fit within the evolutionary meta-narrative. (See The way it really is.) And that narrative specifically denies that the global Flood ever happened.
Be a skeptic. Challenge the orthodoxy of evolution and millions of years that you have been told since you were a toddler. Don’t be molded by society. Look at alternatives. Think outside the box.
Give me a break
Tas
1. The article you refer to is very dishonest. I would be embarrassed to be associated with it if I were you.
2. Uniformitarianism does not assume the biblical account is not true. However the biblical account must be compatible with it otherwise we are in fantasy land where anything and everyting is up for questioning and rock solid evidence doesn’t count anymore. You should look it up as you don’t seem to understand it. Are you science qualified?
3. The ‘evidence’ you cite above is nothing of the sort. The bible is full of errors, so it cannot be considered to be totally reliable. Everyone knows this. If you don’t then you haven’t read it. Simple as that.
Your rapid burial hypothesis, if linked to such a short time frame would exclude the possibility of three dimensional fossils. All would have to be squashed flat. Again, this is not evidence but wishful thinking. I could go on and on.
You still haven’t answered how you believe plants could grow again in soil that has been contaminated with salt, as the flood myths would ensure. What about the freshwater fish? Again, no answer. Why so many marine fish go extinct? A global flood cannot account for it.
4. Radiometrics ARE accurate. It is not a conspiracy to ‘conceal the truth’ of creationism, which is what the arguments against it seem to imply. Look into Fission Track dating. This is the final proof of radiometrics. FT dating supports all the other methods and is not a form of radiometrics that can be doubted in the manner of denying the original composition of the rock … which is still against the principle of uniformitarianism.
5. EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION HAS BEEN PROVEN IN CONTROLLED LABORATORY AND NATURALISTIC EXPERIMENTS (see Dawkins’ latest book for an account, do read it. All the things that creationists say can’t happen are shown to have been documented). Creationism is well and truely dead, give it up.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break, I’ve made comments in your post.
Not at all. Stop trying to be a bully.
Uniformitarianism assumes Noah’s global Flood did not happen. That sounds to me like assuming the Bible is not true.
“Everyone knows this”. This is obviously nonsense. Do you believe this yourself, or are you just trying to bluff? If you have an open mind then check out some articles here about the Bible.
Most fossils are squashed flat. Some are not such as broken tree trunks and shells. Search creation.com for “polystrate fossils”.
1. The soil would be leached of chemicals by water receding during the Flood and by rainfall afterward.
2. Some areas of floodwater would be fresh due to the rainfall, as in the mouth of the Amazon River. Some fish, like salmon, can live in salt and fresh water. Fish can adapt to changes in salt content.
3. Floods today kill lots of fish because of the suspended sediment and the depletion of oxygen due to rotting vegetation. It’s not surprising that some marine species perished in the Flood.
You can find more detailed answers to these questions on Creation.com by using the search box. If you have any trouble with the search box I am willing to help you, but I am sure you could find the answers yourself if you are really interested.
Have you looked at any of the articles I mentioned previously? Do you know what geologists do when they interpret radiometric results? Are you aware of how the long-age paradigm filters the results and gets all the scientists singing the same tune? It seems to me that you are just hoping that this is true.
I’m sure I have explained to you before that creationists agree with natural selection. Do you understand the difference between natural selection and evolution? Again, do a search for “natural selection” and “evolution” on creation.com.
Dear Give Me a Break, Creation/evolution is a big issue and it affects us each one personally so I am more than willing to answer your questions. But sometimes some people do not want to know because of the implications it has for them.
As God says in the Bible, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” Jer 29:13. So, I hope you can open your heart to the possibility of God’s reality and seek after Him.
All the best,
Tas Walker
Give me a break
I see you deleted my last post. I shouldn’t be surprised.
I won’t trouble myself listing all the errors in your last post.
I’ll suffice with just a few. Firstly, fresh water fish cannot adapt to salt water in one generation. It is pure fantasy.
Plants will not grow in salted earth for a VERY long time. In any event, the plants that once grew there would have been killed by they salt water and their seeds dessicated … there would have been no plants left to grow.
The article you cite against radio metrics is dishonest. It is utterly incorrect and there are many methods that the paradigm of the attack, even if it was a decent criticism, would cause a difficulty for. This is only part of the dishonesty in the article – to be clear, it ignores the many inherent protections against the ‘criticism’ within the methods and seeks to deliberately mislead by pretends that the ‘criticism’ is effective. Just like the dishonest Haeckel article you have cited … by the way, are you going to distance yourself from the Haeckel article?
But back to the topic, look at the fission track radio metric dating. Explain how you keep your young earth idea alive in light of this method. Here is a link with the basic theory – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_track_dating
Tas Walker
Give me a break,
I’ve given you a fair go at posting. I’ve not wanted to ignore your posts so where I thought they were not relevant or helpful I have answered directly to your email address. But, every time my email to you has bounced, so it seems to me that you are giving a false email address.
You are continually bringing up issues for which there are good answers if you were prepared to look for them.
For example, go to Creation.com and type “fresh salt-water fish” in the search box for answers on the fish. The fact is that there are a number of fish that can migrate from salt to fresh water each year without any problem today.
Do the same with your other questions, such as the plants surviving in salt-water. There are satisfactory explanations. In fact, Darwin did experiments on how long plants can survive in salt water because the evolutionary model has to explain the distribution of plants too. So don’t just throw up the issue as a problem for the creation model. The latest Journal of Creation has an article about biogeography, but you will have to buy a copy to read it.
And your link about fission-track dating explains the “theory” very nicely. But it doesn’t work out that way in practice, and it did not make clear the assumptions behind the method. This article deals with some of the problems with radioactive dating and has a section dealing with fission-track dating.
john
Hi,Tas
This bloke seems to pop up all the time,obviously is a diehard evolutionist/atheist by his blogs. It’s like trying to convince Jehovahs Witnesses or Mormons they’re wrong,we end up agreeing to disagree. I’d be wanting a break myself.
I’m still studying and hope to finish next year, with the degree.There is no way the world could be billions of years old anyway, human history only goes back about the time Ussher has calculated, and how do people think the Egyptians and South Americans built their pyramids, anyway? Slave labour with thousands dragging huge blocks of granite or whatever up ramps? In the mountainous regions ion South America?
This whole evolutionary progression is nonsense. People did not start off as hunter gatherers, they lost technical knowhow or were forced to because of harsh living conditions after the flood.
I’m sure there are quite a few inventions lost to history and for this current culture to consider itself the most advanced on the planet is folly.
I’ve seen one article on the net where a bloke doing research claims the Phoenicians mined the Coorong to meet the demand for tin in the “Bronze Age” 3000 years ago.
Keep up the good work
Jordan
liquify the earth.
– The Mississippi river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year—at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years.
I could sit here for a year full time and type out other more complex evidences, but obviously you are quite blinded, and apparently very ignorant of the fact that evolution has been disproven a million times over, and has nothing to do with science, but is the basis of an athiestic cult. If you can refute any of these points in a scientific manner then I challenge you to do so, even though just one evidence as such would disband any other hypothesis (evolution does not deserve the name theory) immediately. So if you want to be an athiest, go ahead, but evolution did not occur, and there is an Intelligent Designer (GOD). Oh and one more point. You called the Bible a fairy tale, yet it is by supremely far the most historically accurate book over the time it spans. Go be ignorant with your evolutionist friends.
Sean Clark
I am shocked. I didn’t realise that this level of ignorance actually existed! These “arguments” against evolution are so flawed that I would find them funny if it wasn’t for the fact that I get the impression that some of you actually believe them. Don’t you realise that your Christian world-view is basically an “evolution” of various pagan Sun God cults anyway? Please try to relax, enjoy the beautiful world around you and make the most of the life you have – it’s the only one you get.
Tas Walker
Hi Sean, Thanks for writing. I hope you keep looking around the site. Check out creation.com too.
FRANK SHERWIN
Sean Clark — how’s this for “a level of ignorance”: nanotechnology is one of the many ‘aces’ we have as non-darwinian scientists. Continued discoveries regarding the trillions of submicroscopic molecular motors, levers and rotary joints in our 100 trillion cells has only strengthened our case. Clearly such rotary precision at the nanoscale has no place at the table of time, chance & natural processes.
In addition, much has been happening in science that casts a long shadow on the strange darwinian idea – such as: soft dinosaur tissue, the recently-discovered DNA ‘splicing code’ (Heidi Ledford, “The code within the code,” Nature 465, 16–17 (06 May 2010) J. Ramón Tejedor & Juan Valcárcel, “Gene regulation: Breaking the second genetic code,” Nature 465, 44–46 (06 May 2010)), the mudrock/mudstone revolution, the creationist discovery of the regionally extensive mass-kill and burial bed within the Redwall limestone at Grand Canyon, the power of catastrophist geology at Mt. St. Helens—(and the thundering silence from secular geologists), and this—http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3599/a-strange-solar-flare-connection —there’s a lot of other creation-friendly items as well.
Chris
Question about the author’s phrase “…Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago.” Key words: years ago. We having passed the 2,000 year mark C.E. (Common Era), now being in 2011, 4500 years ago therefore means the zenithic phase you speak of for “Noah’s flood” happened around 2500 B.C.E. or B.C., whichever term you use.
2500 B.C. is after the Sumerian civilization got going, thus after the biblical Tower of Babel. Or – were you meaning to say the zenithic phase of the global flood happened about 4500 B.C. – meaning it was really around 6500 years ago, instead? Please clarify. Thank you!
impressed
I gotta say that I disagree with you, Tas Walker, but I am impressed at how civil this conversation has been all around. Way to be! I don’t understand anyone’s problem with radioisotope dating. Any isotopic dating technique that uses isotopes with adequate half-lives gives very similar answers, and the only real assumption is that the decay rates that we can measure in a lab today haven’t changed over time, and there’s no reason to think that they have…?
Tas Walker responds:
Hi Impressed, Isotopic dating is not as you imagine. It all has to do with the way the results are ‘interpreted’. That is an after-the-fact process that changes the assumptions so that the results make sense with everything else. See Radioactive dating methods: Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story.