How do flood apologists explain these? (page 2)

budbayview

Good question!

My 2 cents…

Suppose for a minute, that the dating evidence of humans and remains demonstrates that we have been living on Earth longer than the biblical chronological history adds up to? We can assume it is A, true, or B, false, and thus the dating methods flawed. So, who said it cannot be true? How do we know the angles did not descend from time to time, put on some human skin and try out the environment? It is plausible, they have been known to take human forum, albeit for more sinister antediluvian antics.

Looking into archeological dating methods some, and without getting into the technical details, I do not think they are that far off. I think it is more plausible to assume A, that it is true, and the Earth is certainly been around a long time.

I think it is time to start looking for other explanations to explain the gaps in the bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying to discount the Geneses allegory totally, but perhaps some details were left out. It gets harder to believe the narrative as is, as man gets smarter and indisputable facts start hitting you in the face. For example, what about Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans? Scientist are not faking these, this is real, and there has to be an explanation that supports the creationist and reality.

stuckinarut2

Well said LisaRose!!!

truthseeker100

Crazy Guy wrote: Another thought that disproves the flood is the islands of Madagascar and Australia. On both of these islands the animals evolved to be unique to just that island.

It's always a good question to ask how did these animals get off the Ark on top of Mount Ararat and go to these places and these places only ?

As far as Neanderthals and the like budbayview ,they were just relatives of the Nephilim .LOL

marmot

Perry, even if you completely ignore the carbon dating angle of the issue, I want to know how you reconcile "pre-flood" animal remains (in this case mammoth bones) in direct contact with man-made spear points in NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA. This means that there was a human population in the Americas at the time of the supposed flood. Did your loving god extinguish these people without warning?

Jonathan Drake

The way the explain it is with facts, such as water damage or exposure causing objects to date thousands of years older than the really are. This then implies, to me at least that, you must choose between believing or not with no reliable proof of either one.

The following is taken from a wiki page about carbon dating, and yes I know wiki isn't the best source of information; however, there are many other credible references to establish the effects water has on the objects being dated. So the conundrum becomes, if there was a flood, nothing pre-flood would date properly.

Other effects
If the carbon in freshwater is partly acquired from aged carbon, such as rocks, then the result will be a reduction in the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio in the water. For example, rivers that pass over limestone, which is mostly composed of calcium carbonate, will acquire carbonate ions. Similarly, groundwater can contain carbon derived from the rocks through which it has passed. These rocks are usually so old that they no longer contain any measurable 14
C
C, so this carbon lowers the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio of the water it enters, which can lead to apparent ages of thousands of years for both the affected water and the plants and freshwater organisms that live in it.[12] This is known as the hard water effect, because it is often associated with calcium ions, which are characteristic of hard water; however, there can be other sources of carbon that have the same effect, such as humus.[19] The effect is very variable and there is no general offset that can be applied; the usual way to determine the size of the effect is to measure the apparent age offset of a modern sample.[19]
Volcanic eruptions eject large amounts of carbon into the air. The carbon is of geological origin and has no detectable 14
C
C, so the 14
C
C/12
C
C ratio in the vicinity of the volcano is depressed relative to surrounding areas. Dormant volcanoes can also emit aged carbon. Plants that photosynthesize this carbon also have lower 14
C
C/12
C ratios: for example, plants on the Greek island of Santorini, near the volcano, have apparent ages of up to a thousand years. These effects are hard to predict—the town of Akrotiri, on Santorini, was destroyed in a volcanic eruption thousands of years ago, but radiocarbon dates for objects recovered from the ruins of the town show surprisingly close agreement with dates derived from other means. If the dates for Akrotiri are confirmed, it would indicate that the volcanic effect in this case was minimal.[19]

marmot

The problem you radiocarbon deniers run into is that multiple dating methods are used to determine the age of these sites, such as uranium dating and stratigraphy and they all point to the same age.

Jonathan Drake

The problem you radiocarbon deniers run into is that multiple dating methods are used to determine the age of these sites, such as uranium dating and stratigraphy and they all point to the same age.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that much about radiocarbon dating. But I've asked the same question in your OP and this is what I got. And it is factual (this much at least) so at the time I accepted it, it led me to think that I had to choose between believing carbon dating or believing the flood happened. I know at least I did preliminary research and reading about this water damage point, but I still want to read more about it.

do you have any book, or article suggestions?

truthseeker100

Jonathan Drake

Trust me there is a lot of scientific thought that goes into carbon dating. Look up accuracy of carbon dating on Wikipedia for a start. If a lot of it seems a little esoteric at first just focus on the real world, things like,why are there no native kangaroos in North or South America? Why are there no moose in Australia? Why do bacteria become immune to anti antibiotics? When you start to research (even on your own) any subjects like these in any depth your faith in a global flood will subside. That's why the Governing Body discourages higher education.

I forgot to say welcome to the forum.

Billy the Ex-Bethelite

Hmmm, let's ask a real expert...

"The devil put those things there to trick you!"

truthseeker100

Billie LOL I don't know what would be more scary to a young JW male? The picture above or the picture in your avatar. LOL

How do flood apologists explain these?

Share this