Younger Dryas impact = Biblical Flood

Just to throw a little more rain of fire and cataclysmic rains into the mix,
The Bay Miwok( native Californians from the north side of San Francisco Bay) story of how Sah'-Te set the world on fire.

Wek'-wek returned to Tu'-le-yo'-me and presently saw Sah'-te come and go north again toward Clear Lake. Wek'-wek wanted to find out where Sah'-te lived, so he went up to Clear Lake and at the head of Sulphurbank Bay he found Sah'-te's lah'-mah (roundhouse). He said to himself, "Now I've got you," and went into Sah'-te's house. But Sah'-te was not at home. Wek'-wek looked around and saw a great quantity of hoo'-yah, the shell beads or money. It was in skin sacks. He took these sacks--ten or twelve of them--and emptied the shell money out on a bear skin robe and packed it on his head back to Tu'-le-yo'-me. But he did not take it in to show his grandfather; he hid it in a small creek near by and did not say anything about it.

When Sah'-te came home he found that his beads were gone. "Who stole my beads?" he asked.

He then took his yah'-tse [the stick the people used to wear crossways in a twist of their back hair] and stood it up in the fire, and oo'-loop the flame climbed it and stood on the top. He then

took the yah'-tse with the flame at one end and said he would find out who stole his shell money. First he pointed it to the north, but nothing happened; then to the west, and nothing happened; then east; then up; then down, and still nothing happened. Then he pointed it south toward Tu'-le-yo'-me and the flame leaped from the stick and spread swiftly down the east side of Lower Lake, burning the grass and brush and making a great smoke.

In the evening Wek'-wek came out of the roundhouse at Tu'-le-yo'-me and saw the country to the north on fire. He went in and told his grandfather that something was burning on Clear Lake.

Ol'-le the Coyote-man answered, "That's nothing; the people up there are burning tules."

Ol'-le knew what Wek'-wek had done, and knew that Sah'-te had sent the fire, for Ol'-le was a magician and knew everything, but he did not tell Wek'-wek that he knew.

After a while Wek'-wek came out again and looked at the fire and saw that it was much nearer and was coming on swiftly. He was afraid, and went back and told his grandfather that the fire was too near and too hot and would soon reach them. After a little he went out again and came back and said, "Grandfather, the fire is coming fast; it is on this side of the lake and is awfully hot."

Ol'-le answered, "That's nothing; the people at Lower Lake are burning tules."

But now the roar and heat of the fire were terrible, even inside the roundhouse, and Wek'-wek thought they would soon burn. He was so badly frightened that he told his grandfather what he had done. He said, "Grandfather, I stole Sah'-te's hoo'-yah and put it in the creek, and now I'm afraid we shall burn."

Then Ol'-le took a sack and came out of the roundhouse and struck the sack against an oak tree, and fog came out. He struck the tree several times and each time more fog came out and spread around.

Then he went back in the house and got another sack and beat the tree, and more fog came, and then rain. He said to Wek'-wek, "It is going to rain for ten days and ten nights." And it did rain, and the rain covered the whole country till all the land and all the hills and all the mountains were under water--everything except the top of Oo-de'-pow-we (Mount Konokti, on the west side of Clear Lake) which was so high that its top stuck out a little.
There was no place for Wek'-wek to go and he flew about in the rain till he was all tired out. Finally he found the top of Oo-de'-pow-we and sat down on it and stayed there.
On the tenth day the rain stopped, and after that the water began to go down and each day the mountain stood up higher.

How Sah'-Te set The World On Fire

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The scientific method? No one has used that for any of the guesswork involved in much geological study. When there can be no observation, there can be no claim that the scientific method was used. Scientists cannot observe long term geological events. Plenty of scientists do believe the evidence supports a global flood, and dismissing them out of hand isn't reasonable. Nor is claiming their work isn't "real science".

You just proved my point. You don't get your science from scientific papers and research, and don't even understand what an "observation" is in science. Observation does not necessarily mean observing an event in real time. We can observe the fossil record to learn about the past. Hilarious that you believe the breakdown of isotopes is guesswork when it is measured and documented to be consistent with the rate that we have observed. Can you prove dating methods are unscientific or provide any evidence that you keep claiming supports a global flood?

You brought up the scientific method, and now you complain when it's pointed out that it cannot be used for such work? Observation is key. Surely you can do better than that.

Surely you can understand how the scientific method actually works instead of parroting stuff from creationist websites as fact.

Basically you need to provide facts. Where are they?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: CryHavoc

Can you provide more data on tha impact crater?

Pics or Google cordinates or both or anything please?

I wish. I saw it once on a geological map at the college. I wish I would have written the name down. I can't even find it on a Google search. It's a circular ridge that's in about a 60 mile wide circle from Chicago to Ottawa Illinois. The Illinois river runs through it near Ottawa.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


The scientific method? No one has used that for any of the guesswork involved in much geological study.

You what? Have you been watching 'The Big Bang Theory' to get your science views, along with creationist websites?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes When there can be no observation, there can be no claim that the scientific method was used. Scientists cannot observe long term geological events.

In a way, geologists can observe long term geological events via the rock record, amongst other things.

Geologic time .pdf

Just a small sample of scholarly articles on geochronology

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes Plenty of scientists do believe the evidence supports a global flood, and dismissing them out of hand isn't reasonable. Nor is claiming their work isn't "real science".

I love the way you consistently provide sources to back up your assertions.

There is no geologic evidence for a global flood. Outright.
The 'researchers' (I use that term extremely loosely) who postulate that there was are not engaging in real science at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
You just proved my point. You don't get your science from scientific papers and research, and don't even understand what an "observation" is in science. Observation does not necessarily mean observing an event in real time. We can observe the fossil record to learn about the past. Hilarious that you believe the breakdown of isotopes is guesswork when it is measured and documented to be consistent with the rate that we have observed. Can you prove dating methods are unscientific or provide any evidence that you keep claiming supports a global flood?

That isn't the case at all. You claim that I don't use certain sources, and don't understand things, but that is your opinion only, and not fact. Claiming that the opposition doesn't understand anything is a poor tactic. If that is the best you can do, then don't expect a response after this.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Well, I can see that some sort of cosmic event could have been involved, but I still believe this was a global flood, not a local one. Good data, though, thanks.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That isn't the case at all. You claim that I don't use certain sources, and don't understand things, but that is your opinion only, and not fact. Claiming that the opposition doesn't understand anything is a poor tactic. If that is the best you can do, then don't expect a response after this.

Ok, then where is your evidence and where is your answer to my questions? You make many claims, but you post very little evidence. You demonstrated a blatant misunderstanding about how an observation works in science. That is not my opinion. That is fact. You have thus far demonstrated nothing that suggest a great flood. You claimed there was a bunch of evidence, I'm just waiting to see it. Let the evidence do the talking. Anybody can literally say anything on a website. Where's the hard evidence?

originally posted by: Barcs

You just proved my point. You don't get your science from scientific papers and research, and don't even understand what an "observation" is in science. Observation does not necessarily mean observing an event in real time. We can observe the fossil record to learn about the past. Hilarious that you believe the breakdown of isotopes is guesswork when it is measured and documented to be consistent with the rate that we have observed. Can you prove dating methods are unscientific?

The Facts

We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
Isochron Dating

There is another form of dating called isochron dating, which involves analyzing four or more samples from the same rock unit. This form of dating attempts to eliminate one of the assumptions in single-sample radioisotope dating by using ratios and graphs rather than counting atoms present. It does not depend on the initial concentration of the daughter element being zero. The isochron dating technique is thought to be infallible because it supposedly eliminates the assumptions about starting conditions. However, this method has different assumptions about starting conditions and can give incorrect dates.

If single-sample and isochron dating methods are objective and reliable they should agree. However, they frequently do not. When a rock is dated by more than one method it may yield very different ages. For example, the RATE group obtained radioisotope dates from ten different locations. To omit any potential bias, the rock samples were analyzed by several commercial laboratories. In each case, the isochron dates differed substantially from the single-sample radioisotope dates. In some cases the range was more than 500 million years.6 Two conclusions drawn by the RATE group include:

The single-sample potassium-argon dates showed a wide variation.
A marked variation in ages was found in the isochron method using different parent-daughter analyses.

If different methods yield different ages and there are variations with the same method, how can scientists know for sure the age of any rock or the age of the earth?

In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks! Are the dates given in textbooks and journals accurate and objective? When assumptions are taken into consideration and discordant (disagreeing or unacceptable) dates are not omitted, radioisotope dating often gives inconsistent and inflated ages.
Two Case Studies

The RATE team selected two locations to collect rock samples to conduct analyses using multiple radioisotope dating methods. Both sites are understood by geologists to date from the Precambrian (supposedly 543–4,600 million years ago). The two sites chosen were the Beartooth Mountains of northwest Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park, and the Bass Rapids sill in the central portion of Arizona’s Grand Canyon. All rock samples (whole rock and separate minerals within the rock) were analyzed using four radioisotope methods. These included the isotopes potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb). In order to avoid any bias, the dating procedures were contracted out to commercial laboratories located in Colorado, Massachusetts, and Ontario, Canada.

In order to have a level of confidence in dating, different radioisotope methods used to date a rock sample should closely coincide in age. When this occurs, the sample ages are said to be concordant. In contrast, if multiple results for a rock disagree with each other in age they are said to be discordant.
answersingenesis.org...

a reply to: Seede

Sorry, AIG is not a science site nor is their research backed by experiments. If you believe they are, then link me to the science itself. You pretty much just proved my point by citing a religious biased website rather than actual scientific research. Try again. Link the peer reviewed papers that back your "facts" above. Thanks.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry, AIG is not a science site nor is their research backed by experiments. If you believe they are, then link me to the science itself. You pretty much just proved my point by citing a religious biased website rather than actual scientific research. Try again. Link the peer reviewed papers that back your "facts" above. Thanks.

AIG is not the ones who conducted the tests. Apparently you did not read the source as the experiments were definitely conducted by qualified scientists of whom Dr. Steve Austin has over eight research papers. By the way Peer Review is nothing but bought referees and are still under investigation for fraud. You know, the good ole boy system which bilked billions from the Al Gore global warming fiasco. Peer Reviewed by bought referees? Austin, De Young, Snelling, Humphreys and hundreds more are as reliable as secular referees in the peer review racket. You do need to read both side of scientific facts.

All the author did was report the findings of independent sources. Facts are facts regardless of who presents the facts. I thought that was what this forum was . Isn't this forum a religious forum and isn't that what was presented? I do not expect a bunch of secular clubbers to acknowledge that they are as wrong as wrong can be. Peer reviews are as political and faulty as their original global warming which they bilked in the billions of bucks.

Need some facts? Science is ever correcting it's secular university hog wash and that is why the U.S. is a world failure. Some where in the neighborhood of 27th internationally. There is your proof.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Barcs

AIG is not the ones who conducted the tests. Apparently you did not read the source as the experiments were definitely conducted by qualified scientists of whom Dr. Steve Austin has over eight research papers.

This is true for the tests performed at Geocron where Dr. Austin sent his samples. The RATE study cited later in your material however was in fact paid for by AIG. I'll deal with Dr. Austin here and when I have time tonight I will deal with RATE as both studies are poppycock of the first order.

The equipment in use at the time at the lab employed by Dr. Austin, Geocron Laboratories, was of a type sensitive enough to only detect higher concentrations of argon gas. Geocron clearly stated that their equipment was only capable of accurate results when the sample contained a concentration of argon high enough to be consistent with 2,000,000 years or older. So, by any standard, it was scientifically meaningless for Dr. Austin to apply Geocron's potassium-argon dating to his sample of dacite known to be only six years old.

There are two possible reasons that the old dates were returned. The first has to do with the reason Geocron's equipment was considered useful only for high concentrations of argon. There would always be a certain amount of argon inside the mass spectrometer left over from previous experiments. If the sample being tested is old enough to have significant argon, this leftover contamination would be statistically insignificant; so this was OK for Geocron's normal purposes. But for a sample with little or no argon, it would produce a falsely old result. This was undoubtedly a factor in Dr. Austin's results.

The second possibility is that so-called "excess argon" could have become trapped in the Mount St. Helens magma. This is where we find the bulk of the confusing complexity in Austin's paper and in those of his critics. The papers all go into great detail describing the various ways that argon-containing compounds can be incorporated into magma. These include the occlusion of xenoliths and xenocrysts, which are basically contaminants from existing old rocks that get mixed in with the magma; and phenocrysts, which are crystals of all sorts of different minerals that form inside the rock in different ways depending on how quickly the magma cools. 95% of these papers are geological jargon that will make your head spin: Page after page of chemical compositions, mineral breakdowns, charts and graphs, and all sorts of discussion of practically every last molecule found in the Mount St. Helens dacite.

He did not simply use the wrong kind of radiometric dating as an ignorant blunder. He was deliberately trying to illustrate that even a brand-new rock would show an ancient age, even when potassium-argon dating was properly used. He ignored the probable likelihood that the limitations of Geochron's equipment accounts for the results, just as Geochron warned. Certainly there is no doubt that the test was far outside the useful parameters of potassium-argon dating. He is wrong that his phenocrysts constitute a fatal flaw in potassium-argon dating previously unknown to geology. In fact, the implications of phenocrysts were already well understood. Yes they are one of the variables, and yes, in some samples they do push the error bars. However, the errors they introduce are in the range of a standard deviation, they are not nearly adequate to explain errors as gross as three or more orders of magnitude, which would be necessary to explain the discrepancy between the measured age of rocks and the Biblical age of the Earth.

Such variables are also a principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty reckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

What Austin did was to exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating; dramatically illustrate it with a high-profile test using the public's favorite volcano, Mount St. Helens; and sensationalize the results in a paper that introduces nothing new to geologists, but that impresses laypeople with its detailed scientific language.

By the way Peer Review is nothing but bought referees and are still under investigation for fraud. You know, the good ole boy system which bilked billions from the Al Gore global warming fiasco. Peer Reviewed by bought referees? Austin, De Young, Snelling, Humphreys and hundreds more are as reliable as secular referees in the peer review racket. You do need to read both side of scientific facts.

Nobody I worked with ever bought or paid for positive reviews of their papers and I in fact I worked with people who published material that was not very well received. Your premise is bull and comes off as anti-intellectualism or scientific illiteracy. It's really easy for lay people to boo hoo research and how it is conducted when an organization like AIG can write up a mocking condescension for them to latch on to because it look good and reacts with preconceived confirmation biases because they haven't bothered to learn enough useful science to know if they're being taken for a ride.

All the author did was report the findings of independent sources. Facts are facts regardless of who presents the facts.

Unless they aren't actually facts.

I thought that was what this forum was . Isn't this forum a religious forum and isn't that what was presented?

What was presented was garbage. Garbage in. Garbage out. You can breath in the fumes if that's what you're into but just because you see an orange peel in the middle of the muck, that doesn't make it edible.

I do not expect a bunch of secular clubbers to acknowledge that they are as wrong as wrong can be. Peer reviews are as political and faulty as their original global warming which they bilked in the billions of bucks.

Nor do we expect people who are scientifically illiterate to actually realize how silly they are making statements like this with no understanding of the actual science but they found a rebuttal that looks sciency enough on AIG so it must be true because...GOD. We do hope that every once in a while we can educate the poor sods though. Unfortunately most of them are so closed minded that its a hopeless endeavor.

Need some facts? Science is ever correcting it's secular university hog wash and that is why the U.S. is a world failure. Some where in the neighborhood of 27th internationally. There is your proof.

Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science? Maybe it's because they aren't over run with young earth creationist maniacs attempting to force their unscientific world views on their respective host nations. There's YOUR proof.

So I'm looking for another large scale event somewhere between 11500 and 4500 years back.


Tollmann's hypothetical bolide impact 7640 BC?
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Barcs
Where's the hard evidence?

Probably buried in some Smithsonian warehouse.

About that 'scientific method'...

I prefer nonfiction myself.

originally posted by: Sun Matrix
It's hard to find a culture without a flood story........Noah is the real deal.

originally posted by: CherubBaby
Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Flood myths are almost universal, and the one of the Miao people in China has preserved the names of all the patriarchs of Genesis PHONETICALLY for all those centuries. Yes, they got the names of Noah, his wife, and his sons all correct, sounding more than merely recognizable. I can't buy the local flood theories - I mean there were and are local floods, but the big one is preserved in the entire sedimentary layers around the world. You can interpret them as laid down during millions of years if you want, but I think rapid deposition is at least a valid an interpretation.

"And the odds become even longer that Noah's Flood is not an historical fact when one considers the hundreds of tribes from around the world that have ancestral knowledge of the global Flood. And yet, we are expected to ignore this overwhelming evidence because it contradicts current mainstream science and archaeology.

Hundreds of tribal legends and ancient accounts from Egypt, Babylon, and the Indus confirm the account of Noah's Flood from the book of Genesis. These tribes and ancient cultures obviously had no interest in copying a Hebrew account about a global Flood, therefore, all of these accounts must have been independently derived by the various people-groups' ancestors from the eight who were on the vessel that endured the global Flood. When the eight reproduced and spread out across the Middle East, and soon thereafter, much of the world (as some were demonstrably excellent mariners), the memory of the worldwide Flood was retained, and to a not-surprisingly great degree."

The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood

What is the significance of the various flood legends? The answer seems obvious: (a) we have well over 200 flood legends that tell of a great flood (and possibly more than 500); (b) many of the legends come from different ages and civilizations that could not possibly have copied any of the similar legends; (c) the legends were recorded long before any missionaries arrived to relate to them the Genesis account of Noah; and (d) almost all civilizations have some sort of flood legend. The conclusion to be drawn from such facts is that in the distant past, there was a colossal flood that forever affected the history of all civilizations.

Preserved in the myths and legends of almost every people on the face of the globe is the memory of the great catastrophe. While myths may not have any scientific value, yet they are significant in indicating the fact that an impression was left in the minds of the races of mankind that could not be erased.

Legends of the Flood

You can postulate that it does
n`t have to be a world wide flood event just a northern hemisphere event where most of the civilizations were.

What would it be like if the Laurentian ice sheet,the northern European ice sheet,the Siberian ice sheet,the glaciers in turkey and Nepal and Tibet,Pakistan and India all melted within a short time span?

a reply to: peter vlar

Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science? Maybe it's because they aren't over run with young earth creationist maniacs attempting to force their unscientific world views on their respective host nations. There's YOUR proof.

Expected to hear from you Peter. As was writing the last post I expected that you would be jumping and gnashing your teeth. Those stupid ole creationists are all dumber than Peter. Or at least that is what Peter wants people to believe.

"Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science?" - It's quite simple Peter. They all belong to the same choir (just as you said) and being in the same sheep fold it would appear that would make the U.S. appear more stupid then being the 28th sheep of the fold. Simply face facts Peter, really that is about all they have to sell. The U.S. spends more time and money on how to kill off the creationists then they do on true science. You know, the polar bears are drowning thing.

originally posted by: Seede

Expected to hear from you Peter. As was writing the last post I expected that you would be jumping and gnashing your teeth. Those stupid ole creationists are all dumber than Peter. Or at least that is what Peter wants people to believe.

Awww... I feel quite special that you are so incensed by my reply, you resort to a personal diatribe instead of addressing the faulty science and false presumptions you have made. You actually end up proving the end result of the impression you have reserved for me. Oh sweet irony. It is quite telling that you resort to a personal tirade against me though as opposed to addressing the flaws in your argument. It says a lot about the argument itself believe it or not (I'm going with not). Just admit that you don't actually have a working understanding of the science you are attempting to dismiss with a wave of the hand and instead resort to a copy and paste fest from AIG simply because it works better with your personal religious proclivities. For the record though, I don't believe I'm smarter than creationists. I do however believe that many are willfully ignorant. That's not a testament to their intelligence though.

"Then why does the rest of the world seem to be doing so well using the same damned science?" - It's quite simple Peter. They all belong to the same choir (just as you said) and being in the same sheep fold it would appear that would make the U.S. appear more stupid then being the 28th sheep of the fold. Simply face facts Peter, really that is about all they have to sell.

Honestly, from your past posts and our prior interactions, I've come to expect better from you. All you're doing is contradicting every point you attempt to make. It's rather bewildering. You seem to be waxing philosophical rhetoric without connecting that rhetoric to any substantive reality. First the U.S. is a dismal failure because of the way scientific inquiry is conducted but in the face of the fact that the entire world utilizes the same scientific method and how science is performed is a uniform system across the world whether by number 27, number 42 or number 1, you simply move your goal post into a non sequitor. The simple fact of the matter is, your "citations" are charlatans and it only works because people like you seem to be at the bottom of scientific understanding so its far easier to pull the wool over your eyes. If I'm wrong, please actually address the science instead of making this a personal thing with me. All that does is make it look like I've struck a nerve. And a rather large one at that. I didn't make it personal against your fraudulent science, I addressed the science involved. And the root of that science was dishonesty.

The U.S. spends more time and money on how to kill off the creationists then they do on true science. You know, the polar bears are drowning thing.

Hey... if you're comfortable living inside an insular bubble where science is evil, that's your deal and your cross to bear. But if you choose to remain ignorant you must expect to be called out on it when you present evidence without even the most cursory due diligence to determine the validity of what you're citing.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Myths are not hard evidence. Sorry. We know floods happened. None were global regardless of what ancient myth says.

a reply to: Barcs

It's as if they can't fathom the reality that every one of these flood myths centers on a civilization that flourished around a river basin. The Mesopotamians around the Tigris and Euphrates, Egyptians around the Nile, The Indus on the Indus/Sindhu, Chinese around the Yang Tze, the Toltec around the Tula river and on and on... of course there were going to be floods and severe weather that would completely disrupt their societies periodically. It's mind numbing that they are so focused on one book that geography totally escapes them.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Hey thanks for the post.

I'm willing to analyze what you said and take it into account and use it as a tool without insulting you.

Appreciate it.

a reply to: peter vlar

Hey... if you're comfortable living inside an insular bubble where science is evil, that's your deal and your cross to bear. But if you choose to remain ignorant you must expect to be called out on it when you present evidence without even the most cursory due diligence to determine the validity of what you're citing.

You have never seen me say that science is evil. What I do say is that people are evil. As far as being ignorant of all sciences I do admit that I do not understand all science and neither do you. There are many avenues in the word science. I did make the remark that peer review was being investigated for fraud and that is a fact. You are not privy to all avenues of peer review and to say otherwise would be false on your part.

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" is an article written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open access journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannon submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by as many fee-charging open access publishers. The papers were designed with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that it should have been rapidly rejected by editors and peer reviewers, but 60% of the journals accepted it. The article and all of the associated data were published in the 4 October 2013 issue of Science as open access.[2][3]"
en.wikipedia.org...

Shop around and maybe you could get a the right guy for the right buck. That is the good ole boy system and you can spin it any way to suit your own bubble.

As far as the dating methods used today are, in many scientists minds, accepted but wanting in many respects and you very well know it. You very well know that global warming was debunked and the game changed to climate change. Is that honest science? I expected some type of honesty from you but your God hatred overrides that by far.