Archaeology proves LITERAL TRUTH of the Bible

I found a recent archaeological discovery that seems to have been almost completely ignored by even the Christian archaeologists of the day that provides a STUNNING confirmation of the Biblical account. Behold.

We all remember the battle drawn between David and Goliath that took place in 1 Samuel 17, correct? Consider this… First of all, we are told Goliath comes from a city called Gath.

[1 Samuel 17:4] Then a champion named Goliath, from Gath, came out from the Philistine camp. He was six cubits and a span.

So Goliath is from Gath.

Now, consider this.

Archaeologists recently found Gath, and at it, they found a ninth bowl that dates to about 900 BC that LITERALLY HAS THE NAME WRITTEN “GATH” ON IT…

SEE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111300315.html

This is… INSANE CONFIRMATION OF THE BIBLICAL RECORD. This is not even minor. Now, hold up a second, archaeologists have not found the actual Goliath’s cereal bowl. This bowl dates to about 900 BC, whereas Goliath would have died before 1010 BC… However, this does show something very important. The Biblical record tells us there was  a man named Goliath who lived in Gath who lived in the period known as the Early Iron Age. The archaeological record has also revealed a Goliath who lived in Gath in the period of the Early Iron Age, although not the exact same Goliath. This shows us that the name Goliath was in fact a name that existed, in that period, for people living in the city of Gath — in other words, the Biblical record when naming the man who fought David from Gath is not inventing things, but drawing from known historical fact at the time and likely giving the name of an actual figure from the time. In other words, this evidence shows that 1) There is archaeological and historical fact in the story of David and Goliath and 2) Goliath was likely a real figure as what the Bible tells us about Goliath from Gath matches up with the stratigraphical record on people named Goliath from Gath.

“This is a groundbreaking find… Here we have very nice evidence the name Goliath appearing in the Bible in the context of the story of David and Goliath … is not some later literary creation.” – Aren Maier, professor at Bar-Ilan University

I hope you understand what that means… It seems the more we know about ancient history, the more problematic it is for anyone who doesn’t believe in the Bible… Hallelujah.

HALLELUJAH!

 

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “Archaeology proves LITERAL TRUTH of the Bible

  1. Sorry, there’s a typo in the above comments. One of the sentences should read “The evidence against the conclusion that the Black Sea flood is specifically Noah’s flood is overwhelming.”

    Like

    • No problem brother! I actually found a second example of this a few days ago, aside from Goliath. I haven’t posted it on my blog yet, but in 2015 the name Eshbaal was found on an inscription dating to 900 BC — a Biblical figure named Eshbaal was apparently a rival of David. So although it’s not the same Eshbaal, it confirms the etymology of the Bible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I wasnt trying to “debate” SJ. I was inviting him to join an ongoing conversation. Perhaps he has a different point of view. Nothing wrong with a different point of view, right?

      I working on my reply right now.

      Like

  2. My title for this blog was definitely an exaggeration, LOL. I also did not say it directly establishes THE Goliath, I simply showed it proves that the Bible wasn’t making things up when it describes a man living in the early iron age from gath with a name Goliath, when we KNOW there were people from Gath in the early iron age named Goliath. It establishes that the Bible wasn’t outright making things up, as the etymology and geography of the Biblical Goliath fit the archaeological record rather nicely, as noted by Aren Maier, someone whose credentials don’t get much better than they already are as well as the very lead excavation director of Tell es-Safi (Gath), meaning he knows quite a bit to say the least.

    “In addition, the archaeology suggests that the Philistines were not exactly the barbarians described in the OT? ”

    The Bible doesn’t describe the Philistines as “barbarians”, just an enemy group in which the Israelite’s repeatedly battle. The finding was not “ignored” because of this in the slightest, it simply does not receive great attention probably because there are much more seemingly important things to discuss.

    “Besides, I thought that it was your position that the events described in the OT were not necessarily literally historically true.”

    Which part of the OT do I not consider literally true and where does my quote come from? I definitely think the Biblical flood is a local flood.

    Liked by 1 person

    • But archaeology does not confirm the historicity of the event in question here, not at all. That is, it does not prove that David hit Goliath in the head with a rock. This biblical event is not confirmed by archaeology.

      All archaeology shows is that the OT accounts are not completely and totally made up. However, that’s not really good enough if your faith requires that the Bible be infallible or entirely literally true. In this case, if archaeology shows that just one biblical event didn’t happen, then we have a major problem. That is, if archaeology shows that some parts of the Bible are accurate, but other parts aren’t, then the Bible is not infallible. The Bible has to bat 1.000 if the assumption is made that it is literally true. You are in “deep need” of reading William Dever.

      Yes, I’m sure there have been local floods in the Middle East. But I suspect that most of your readers will tell you that the flood described in the OT was a global flood. The only reason for altering our reading of the OT is that we now know that there was no global flood. So to save the OT, we have change our interpretation. I would invite those who believe in a global flood to join in the conversation here, but I doubt if they will.

      The hypothesis that the days of Genesis lasted millions of years is disproved by the order in which life forms appear in the fossil record. And how on earth could Adam have literally named all of the millions of species of animals? We must also consider the question of whether or not death was a part of the planet’s for millions of years before A and E’s sin.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “But archaeology does not confirm the historicity of the event in question here, not at all. That is, it does not prove that David hit Goliath in the head with a rock.”

        I didn’t say it proves David hit Goliath’s head with a rock. I specifically said that it shows that the battle between David and Goliath has FEATURES which contain wires that are hardened right into archaeological and etymological fact. If the Bible was simply making up the story, and said that the person from Gath’s name was Steve rather than Goliath, there may be a problem… People from Gath weren’t named Steve!

        “. But I suspect that most of your readers will tell you that the flood described in the OT was a global flood.”

        This is blatantly false. Please show me where the periods of Genesis contradict the fossil record. Adam also didn’t name “millions” of animal species, because the word species doesn’t even appear in the Bible. Ever. The word species is a man-made term, and if you just look at the scientific literature, there is hardly ANY agreement regarding how to define this term. It’s a mess. The word that does appear in the Bible is that Adam named all the KINDS of animals — I would suspect that the word kind is the biological equivalent to the genus or family level in taxonomic classification.

        Death was in the planet before Adam and Eve, the Bible only says death entered to man when man sinned.

        It seems to me that all your objections are based on false presuppositions of what the Biblical text means when it says certain things. I also doubt that the majority of my viewership supports the global flood, I wrote a post already arguing that the days in Genesis 1 should actually be translated from the Hebrew as periods of time rather than days, and it was rather well-received without any objections to note.

        Again, I see no problems here.

        Like

    • You said archeology affirms biblical EVENTS. Well, the only “event” discussed here was the David and Goliath event. Which archeology does not affirm. In the case of the event that is the focus of this post, archaeology does not confirm or prove that it occurred. So what exactly is “stunning” here?

      Yes, I understand that the archeology does not flat out contradict or disprove the David and Goliath event. That would be quite a challenge for archaeology to do. However, the possible occurrence of the name Goliath on a pot that dates to 900 BC or more than 100 years after the hypothesized date for the David and Goliath event is very thin evidence in support of the conclusion that the event actually occurred.

      Of course, no one writing a legend about a past event alleged to have occurred when and where the legend says this particular event occurred would say that Steve fought David in, say, Paris! If you’re trying to convince your contemporaries that a past event actually happened, you will use credible names and places. Modern day fiction writers do the same thing to make their stories more believable. Certainly the writers of the OT wanted their storied to be credible. So the use of the names Goliath and Gath add little evidence in support of the conclusion that the event actually happened.

      So Adam named the genera? Well, that gets us down to just a few hundred thousand. And you are aware that thousands of genera are composed entirely of populations which are located no where near the Middle East? Did Adam go on a road trip?

      According to Genesis, what is the order in which the following “kinds” of organisms were created?

      Terrestrial animals
      Flying animals
      Fruiting or seed-bearing plants

      Put these in order of creation according to Genesis.

      Death occurred before Adam and Eve? Millions of your fellow Christians would strongly disagree with you. So I’m in good company in my “misreading.” Not that anyone actually knows what the Bible says.

      I see that your readership includes my old friend Wally. Wonder what he thinks about the global flood?

      Like

      • “You said archeology affirms biblical EVENTS. Well, the only “event” discussed here was the David and Goliath event. Which archeology does not affirm. ”

        Did I say the word “events”? If I did, for one, it does. Archaeology has confirmed so many Biblical events that it is unreal. But in relation to the David/Goliath thing, archaeology has more then one way of confirming something. If you reveal countless facts that simply FIT with the archaeological record, then you have a pretty reliable tradition on your hand that is backed up by archaeological fact. The David/Goliath story is backed up because countless details in the story are known to be synonymous with reality. The name of David’s opponent here in contrast to the region he lived in and when he lived in it is the type of confirmation we have in the post I made.

        “Death occurred before Adam and Eve? Millions of your fellow Christians would strongly disagree with you.”

        And that matters zero. People disagreeing with me doesn’t make me wrong. Fact.

        “I see that your readership includes my old friend Wally. Wonder what he thinks about the global flood?”

        I’ve talked to Wally and he doesn’t believe in evolution, so it wouldn’t be surprising if he believed in a global flood. But I have 78 or so followers. You can’t generalize like that.

        As for the order of creation in relation to actual living things, you simply cannot know what happened first in the fossil record. The fossil record is so blatantly scarce regarding when these things first appear that no one has any clue which really came first. I wouldn’t place my bets regarding the sequence of life in Genesis.

        “Certainly the writers of the OT wanted their storied to be credible. So the use of the names Goliath and Gath add little evidence in support of the conclusion that the event actually happened. ”

        This is obvious madness, it’s clear that trolls will try anything to disavow the historical evidence. This objection fails because if you actually take a look at fictional stories from these times you’ll realize that 1) the geography always doesn’t fit 2) the etymology always doesn’t fit and 3) the topography always doesn’t fit. So it doesn’t matter who is writing the fiction, whether it’s the Edomites, Moabites, Israelite’s, Muslims, Russians, ancient Egyptians, etc, if someone is writing a detailed fiction then the the facts wont fit. If the author of 1 Samuel was writing centuries later then he wouldn’t have had a clue regarding names from a place like Gath, which was destroyed in the 9th century BC.

        Like

    • “Yes, you used the word “events.” You word. ”

      Then that was an accident. Chill.

      “And as I noted earlier, it doesn’t matter if archaeology confirms X number of events. If archaeology shows that just one alleged event didn’t happen, it’s game over. The Bible has to bat 1.000. But it doesn’t.”

      The Bible is on a batting spree, and every new excavation gets a few more hits. Bible hasn’t missed.

      “With respect to the specific David v. Goliath event, we do not have have “countless details” which are known to be synonymous with reality. We know that Goliath was a Philistine name and and Gath was a Philistine city. What other details of this specific events have been confirmed by archaeology?”

      LOL! I can name two.

      1. Gath existed
      2. Gath was destroyed by Hazael in the 9th century BC

      For 2., it’s also been confirmed that Hazael (a king of Israel/Judah), as recorded in the Bible, destroyed Tell es-Safi (Gath). So we have proven both Gath existed as well and that it was destroyed by the Israelite king said to destroy it in the Bible. Get rekt.

      “It’s true that millions disagreeing with you does not makes you wrong. However, one wonders why they disagree with you, especially when you consider that this group includes many biblical scholars. ”

      Still irrelevant. It all has to do with interpretation, people interpret these things in different ways. When it comes to Genesis, there is indeed room for interpretation, a lot more room then there is for a text like Exodus or John’s Gospel.

      “Who knows who is correct or what the Bible really says? How is this determned?”

      In the end of the day, only God knows.

      “When I use the word “legend,” I’m not talking about something that is completely fictious or something that is created totally out of whole cloth centuries after the fact. I’m talking about a cultural product which combines elements of actual events with significant enhancements and exaggerations which serve a purpose for the culture. ”

      If this was being made up centuries later by a fictitious writer, they would not even know that Goliath was an early bronze age name from the specific city Gath. They wouldn’t even know this. In fact, if this was a legend, why would they use real names in the first place? They wouldn’t, and we can see from mythologies around the world that the names are wrong for places centuries earlier in different lands. Just look at the apocrypha, it’s all wrong! But the David and Goliath story is right on the money. Why is it that ONLY the Bible out of all the religious texts in the world is hammering all these events? Why is it that every other text in the world gets facts wrong and the Bible always has a clear streak, all the time?

      “nd yet I know the name and location of Troy, as well as Greek and Trojan names, and I could use these in writing a legend about the Trojan Wars.”

      That’s because you have the internet and hundreds of years of critical historical scholarship that has used millions and millions of dollars with some of the best minds to reconstruct the past. Wikipedia didn’t exist when David fought Goliath, doofus.

      “One last thought. Where there rainbows in the Middle East before the “local flood” described in Genesis?”

      ??????????????????????????????????

      Are you basically asking if it rained before the local flood? Ugh, probably, LOL.

      Like

    • So “event” was an accident, even though you used the word twice. And the title of the post is an exaggeration. You know, all of this makes it a little difficult to follow what you are saying.

      Yes, the Bible misses. It misses on The Flood, it misses on the order that life appeared on Earth, it misses on Jericho and conquest of Canaan narrative…and on and on. And we only need one miss.

      So, God only knows what the Bible says. So much for Absolute and literal truth. The truth is simply what you personal interpretation says that it is. Other people have a different truth. Terrific.

      You misunderstood what I was saying about David V. Goliath. I’m asking for archeaological data which support the conclusion that this specific event occurred. The fact that archaeology shows that Gath was destroyed centuries later is totally irrelevant to the question of the event itself. Clearly, the destruction of the city does not demonstrate that David killed Goliath centuries earlier.

      As I noted, archaeology shows that there was a Philistine city called Gath and that Goliath was a Philistine name. That’s two details synonymous with the “reality” of the specific event. Any others?

      Did you even read what I said about legends? I specifically said that I’m NOT saying the any David v. Goliath legend was created from whole cloth centuries after the event. I specifically said that legends can mix fact and fiction. So, most of your comments on this matter address a straw man.

      Why wouldn’t a legend handed down by oral tradition for centuries, a legend which mixes fact and fiction, use names that fit the time and place of the alleged events? You now, the internet is not the only way that the name of people and places are transmitted over time. And the only “facts” confirmed by archaeology are person and place names. And that’s not much.

      If it rained before the flood, there were rainbows before the flood. Is this consist with the Genesis account?

      Like

      • “So “event” was an accident, even though you used the word twice. And the title of the post is an exaggeration. ”

        Exactly.

        ” It misses on The Flood”

        Read this:
        https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/01/11/the-genesis-flood-scripture-history-and-science-indicate-a-local-flood/

        And get back to me on the above post when your done.

        “it misses on Jericho and conquest of Canaan ”

        No, it doesn’t miss on Jericho. Read Bryant Wood’s addressing of this.

        “That’s two details synonymous with the “reality” of the specific event. Any others? ”

        I mentioned;

        1. Gath existed
        2. It was a Philistine city, as noted in the Bible
        3. Gath was captured by Hazael in the 9th century BC, as shown by excavations at it
        4. People from Gath had the name ‘Goliath’ from the time of David

        Even Aren Maier, an archaeologist whose credentials don’t get much better, who thinks the Bible has errors, admits that this finding at Gath establishes validity to the narrative of the David and Goliath battle. You go on to say that the Bible authors were intentionally mixing “fact with fiction”, a claim that is unsupported by the evidence, in fact contradicts our evidence, as well as fails to grasp the concept the later fictitious writings do NOT “mix” facts with fiction, and when they try to do so, they get it wrong.

        Like

    • Also, I don’t know about Troy just because of the internet. People knew the the names and places associated with the Trojan War long after Troy was destroyed and long before Wikipedia and long before millions were spent. They knew of Troy via oral tradition and hand-copied texts. So even thousands of years after these wars, if one was so inclined and knew of these texts, one could have written plenty of historical fiction about these wars with correct names and places. Even in the absence of Wikipedia. Doofus.

      Like

    • Read the Bishop article. Mostly it seems to come down to translation. Words. Words which prompt multiple interpretations. So where is Truth here? No one knows.

      Here are some things that I noticed.

      Bishop starts by noting that person of the time of the flood would have a very limited view of geography. I agree. So for that person, a local flood would seem to be global, would seem to cover the entire world. Yes, I agree. So Bishop makes the case that we have a local observer who would think that a local flood is a whole world flood.

      This would explain the use of words like “all” or “everyone” or “everything” or “all the earth.” And this means that when our observer used phases such as “all the earth,” that observer would really, really mean ALL of the earth. This would not just be a figure of speech. Our observer or our event recorder really, really thinks he’s seen a global flood.

      But then Bishop completely undercuts his case by saying that the words which say “all of the earth” don’t actually mean the entire globe. Now our observer/writer just means to say that all of these events are local. Since WE know this event could only be a local event, our observer must now also know that these are local events.

      But remember, Bishop has said that our observer does NOT know that this is a local event. So which is it?

      So let’s think about the local flood hypothesis in another way.

      The text says the Flood kills everyone (and all the non-human animals, too), because everyone is evil. Everyone in the local area is evil, so all the locals, die.

      Now, if this is a local flood, then there is a limit to the extent of the water. There is dry land around the edges of the local flood, and so within the flood zone, despite what Genesis says, there will be survivors. Lots of survivors. Many evil people will survive. A local flood can’t be killing everyone, and survival rates will probably vary with distance from the epicenter of the flood. But even in the epicenter of the flood, people will survive on floating debris, and if there is dry land at the edges, people will survive.

      So what’s the point of the Flood? Kill some people but not all people? Does this make sense?

      And within the kill zone, are all of the dead actually evil people? Babies, too? Does this make sense?

      And what’s up with rainbows? The rainbow is put in the sky by God to reassure the survivors. It’s to keep the survivors from freaking out every time a cloud passes overhead. If there were rainbows before the flood, how does seeing a rainbow after the flood reassure?

      One other note. There’s been a fair amount of archaeology done in what was Mesopotamia. Any evidence of a large-scale, civilization-destroying flood in this part of the world over the past 4500 years or so? And where are the fountains of the deep in Mesopotamia?

      I’ll get to rest of your comment later.

      Like

      • “But remember, Bishop has said that our observer does NOT know that this is a local event. So which is it? ”

        You seem to have been unable to understand Bishop’s article. He shows that “all the world” to someone of the ancient past would only really consist of the area of about Babylon, somewhere around that, and that’s it. He shows that the Bible uses the phrase “all the world” many times in reference to this general area of where the Biblical events take place, not as a reference to the actual entirety of the world — rather, the world where the events of the Bible generally take place, I would assume.

        “And within the kill zone, are all of the dead actually evil people? Babies, too? Does this make sense?”

        R.I.P.
        If the babies were raised by those people, they would end up evil as well. God had to start humanity over.

        “Any evidence of a large-scale, civilization-destroying flood in this part of the world over the past 4500 years or so?”

        You cannot take the pre-Abrahamic dates of Genesis literally, so the need for it to be 4,500 years ago is nonsense. I do in fact have the exact flood you’re talking about, confirmed by geologists for over two decades now.
        http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

        A massive Middle Eastern-wide flood was known to take place about 7,500 years ago. This covered the entire Biblical area, and the flood broke out when glaciers over two kilometers high broke open, unleashing hundreds of thousands of tons of water. This is exactly the flood in question of the Bible.

        “Also, Wood is someone who absolutely, positively must come up with a date for the destruction of Jericho of around 1400 BC ( if I remember right). He must start by drawing the curve, and then he plots the data. This not how science is done. ”

        You have misrepresented Wood.

        And again, back to Goliath — the inscription shows that the Biblical story has basis in eytmological fact. This was shown even by Aren Maier, one of the leading scholars in this field who thinks the Bible contains errors. So there is no bias when I say this fact — one, someone writing centuries later would know nothing of the name Goliath in Gath, and two, people who write fiction in ancient times DO NOT DRAW ON HISTORICAL FACTS, LOL! And when they do, they almost always get it wrong. For example, they would probably end up saying Goliath was from Khirbet Jearim, or may say that the person from Gath was named Jared. There would be an error. You tell me to read a fictional book called “Killer Angels” or something, a book which was written by the time the internet was in existence and thus enormous loads of information about the past were accessible to anyone, which makes a failed equivocation for the Bible. Find me an ancient book of fiction with as much etymological precision as the Bible. By the way, yesterday I found yet ANOTHER ancient name from a certain location that confirms more names from the Bible — the name Eshbaal found from a 9th century BC inscription. According to the Bible, one of David’s rivals from the late 10th century BC was named Eshbaal. The fury is too great.
        http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/biblical-name-eshbaal-found-outside-of-the-bible/

        This discovery was made just in 2015.

        Like

    • Wood gets the dates for Jericho wrong. You cite radiometric dating in you other posts, and you know what the radiometric dating says about Jericho.

      Also, Wood is someone who absolutely, positively must come up with a date for the destruction of Jericho of around 1400 BC ( if I remember right). He must start by drawing the curve, and then he plots the data. This not how science is done. This is not how real archaeology is done. For contrast, read William Dever.

      There are only two archaeological observations which support the “validity” of the David and Goliath story.

      1) There was a Philistine city called Gath.

      2) There were males on Gath named Goliath.

      That’s it, that’s the list. There are no “countless details.”

      Explain how the destruction of Gath “validates” the David and Goliath story?

      Historical fiction writers do mix fact and fiction. They may do so in such a way as to make the fictional parts seem quite real. Read “Killed Angels.”

      Yes, legends get some of the facts wrong. So does the OT.

      Like

    • I understand the Bishop article just fine. Bishop says the people 4000 years ago had a very narrow and limited view of the world. They did not know that the world extended far, far beyond the boundaries of their “world.” To them, their local area was the entire world. Their local area. was literally “all of the earth.” All of it. If that local area was, say, Mesopotamia, then Mesopotamia was the entire earth. This is what Bishop says in the first part of the article.

      So, following what Bishop is saying, to a “Noah,” a flood that covered a few thousand square would be “global.” That is, it would be viewed at the time by a local contemporary observer as covering the entire world. All of it. The whole world. To a local Mesopotamian observer, Mesopotamia really is literally the entire world, and when a Mesopotamian refers to Mesopotamia, he really is literally referring to the entire world and NOT just to the general sub-region of the world where biblical events take place.

      Now, should the observer of a Mesopotamian flood later record these flood events, then that observer would intend for his words to reflect the “fact” that the entire world was destroyed. This what the local observer would believe. This would his Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. And this would be the message that he would be conveying in the words he would use to describe the event. When the observer says “all of the earth,” he means ALL of the earth. All of it. Every bit of it. This is the conclusion we reach when we start with what Bishop says in the first part of the article.

      But Bishop knows there’s no global flood. So to make the OT true, we can’t have the OT saying that there was a global flood. That would show that it is wrong. Now he now has to do a 180, ignore what he’s just said and re-interpret the words of the story to make it appear that the author did not mean to say “all of the earth” or did not mean that every single person on earth (outside of the ark) was killed.

      However, for reasons given above, this does not make sense. You can’t start by saying that “Noah” would see his local area as the entire world and then say that “Noah” does not mean to say that the entire world was destroyed when “Noah” has, in fact, just seen his entire world destroyed. I understand what Bishop is doing with his interpretation of Hebrew words, but given “”Noah’s” knowledge of the world and his experiences, it’s not that hard to figure out what the words of the story must mean. They must mean to say that the flood was “global.”

      Kill zones.

      What do we do with the fact that mortality within the flood zone is very, very unlikely to be 100 percent? OT says it is, but this can’t be right. Many would have survive a local flood.

      And you’re cool with dead babies? God gives up on those who haven’t sinned and kills them, because they will all grow up to be evil? No hope of any other outcome? No free will? No love from God? Ok, but this seems to contradict other parts of the Bible.

      And what’s this about needing to “start humanity over again.” You’ve just acknowledged that the OT describes a global flood. If the flood is local, there’s no need to start humanity over again.

      Wood.

      I’m not misrepresenting Wood. Wood believes that that OT is literally true. It is central to his faith. Therefore, Jericho must have been destroyed around 1400 BC, and Wood must interpret the data in such a way as to get this date as the destruction date. It is the only only permissible answer. There is no other option. But the radiometric dating shows that Wood is wrong.

      Black Sea flood

      I’ve long known about this flood, but even Bishop says that this flood doesn’t fit the biblical narrative. It’s in the wrong place, and it does not cover “biblical areas.” It’s the result of the release of surface water following a dam failure rather than being the result of a very, very prolonged rain event and the breaking open of the fountains of the deep.

      And the dates are wrong. NOW you tell me that we can’t take the pre-Abrahamic dates as literal history?! The pre-Abrahamic parts of Genesis do not provide us with literal historical truth? You just blew your own post out of the water!

      Still looking for evidence of a civilization-destroying flood from Mesopotamia. Where is it? Even a regional flood in this part of the world would have left behind clear evidence of its occurrence. But the evidence isn’t there.

      David and Goliath

      Lots of words about Goliath, but nothing to show that we have just two, and only two, observations which support the David and Goliath story. No “countless details” here. Just two.

      Let me be clear. I’m certain that some of what is on the OT is accurate. I expect the accuracy is correlated with how far back in time the events occurred. Of corse it gets some names right. But some of the OT is wrong. Like the order of the appearance of life, flood that wipe out the world, ect.

      And when it comes to specific legends about specific events like David and Goliath, you’re never going to be able to use archaeology to “prove” they happened. Such small scale events do not leave behind physical evidence from the specific moment of the specific event. You aren’t going to find David’s sling.

      You also continue to miss the point about legends. They are not necessarily pure fiction. Please try to follow this point. They can and do mix fact and fiction. Like the OT. They can and do use information which may have been handed done for many, many centuries. Like the OT.

      Another book with etymological precision? How about the Iliad?

      (Killer Angels was written long before the internet. You clearly know nothing about this book. You should at least look up things like this before you comment on them.)

      Like

      • “So, following what Bishop is saying, to a “Noah,” a flood that covered a few thousand square would be “global.” That is, it would be viewed at the time by a local contemporary observer as covering the entire world. All of it. ”

        You definitely misunderstood something. A person living in Mesopotamia did not believe Mesopotamia was the entire world, the Mesopotamians were well aware that there existed civilization outside of their area, however to the Mesopotamian, something affecting their entire ‘kingdom’ was to them, considered a global event so to speak. To the ancient observer, the limits of your kingdom and perhaps a few connected neighbors is the “entire world”, as that would be the entire world in which bears your existence. It’s a literary device.

        ” When the observer says “all of the earth,” he means ALL of the earth. All of it. Every bit of it.”

        Nope, he just means his local kingdom in full recognition that there exists a world outside of it.

        The New Testament should serve as a quick debunking of your skewed understanding of how literature worked in the ancient world. Consider this:

        Luke 2:1: In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered.

        Luke records a census that stretched over the “whole world”, but what he really means is the kingdom of the Roman Empire, the extent to which his kingdom lies. However, in Acts, Luke writes the following:

        Acts 16:6: They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia and were prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in Asia.

        Luke is fully aware of the existence of Asia, yet still notes something that covers the Roman kingdom as the “whole world” — so this is nothing more then a literary device.

        That ends any claim that the Bible flood is wrong, we know it happened. Just one more note though. You say:

        “Many would have survive a local flood. ”

        If you know anything about the Mediteranean flood of 7,500 years ago, you’d know no one survived.

        “I’m not misrepresenting Wood. Wood believes that that OT is literally true. It is central to his faith. Therefore, Jericho must have been destroyed around 1400 BC, and Wood must interpret the data in such a way as to get this date as the destruction date. It is the only only permissible answer. There is no other option. But the radiometric dating shows that Wood is wrong.”

        Wood does not presuppose the conclusions. Wood either shows that the evidence is on his side, or simply believes the evidence went wrong somewhere without rebutting it. However, Wood’s case is correct. The “radiometric” data, if you’re referring to the carbon dates, actually establish the veracity of Wood’s dating. According to the C14 dates, Jericho was destroyed 1550 BC. However, all C14 dates before the year 1400 BC, known as the ‘pre-1400 BC offset’, are too early by an average of 150 years, and all dates before 1670 BC are too early in C14 dates by an average of 120 years.

        Because 1550 is between 1,400-1,670 BC, we can use the on average of 150 years too early to see the C14 reveals a 1400 BC destruction.

        “And the dates are wrong. NOW you tell me that we can’t take the pre-Abrahamic dates as literal history?! The pre-Abrahamic parts of Genesis do not provide us with literal historical truth? You just blew your own post out of the water! ”

        Where does my post go out of the water, bud? LOL. You clearly messed up. None of my dates are pre-Abrahamic in any post of yet written.

        “You aren’t going to find David’s sling.”

        David could’ve had a thousand slings and we wouldn’t find them in 2017, three thousand years later.

        “Another book with etymological precision? How about the Iliad?”

        Go ahead and show me the etymological precision of the Iliad, where it gets the etymology of names from different lands centuries before it’s written correct.

        Ooops, you’ve already failed. The OT of course is 100% correct and the archaeological find at Gath helps establish that — it helps establish that the OT story draws from raw facts and wasn’t making things up. WHENEVER an ancient story makes something up about another culture, the other culture sounds DISTINCTIVELY like the culture writing the story. This always happens with fiction — but this never happens with the Biblical stories, because they aren’t faction. They are raw fact. Is it really just a coincidence that the most ancient name at one of the most important ancient sites in the Bible, Gath (Gath is mentioned more times then any other non-Israelite city in the entire Bible) found is Goliath? God is revealing these things, God is making it too obvious that His stories are true to the disbelievers.

        Like

    • What Noah knew:

      You asked me to read Bishop’s article. I did so.

      Bishop says life 4000 years ago was very limited (note that Bishop dates the biblical flood at 4000 years ago, a date incompatible with the the Black Sea flood). Bishop says anything a person knew would be very narrow. Bishop says that what they knew would be confined to a local area.

      I’m not saying these things. Bishop is saying these things.

      Therefore, based on what BISHOP says, to our observer named Noah, the local area is literally the “entire world.” The local area is not a part of a bigger world, it’s ALL of the world.

      In this story, at this location, at this date in time (time of the hypothesized flood and not when the NT was written – your NT verses are irrelevant), “entire world” means the ENTIRE world. It is not a literary device. Based on what BISHOP says about life “4000 years ago,” the recorder of the events can only be intending to say that the the flood cover ALL of the earth. The observer/recorder cannot know that this is a just local event. Bishop tells you that this is so.

      (It always amuses me to watch believers flip back and forth between saying the Bible offers literal history and saying the Bible is just using “literary devices.” Hey, whatever gets you through the night.)

      Black Sea flood of 7500 years ago:

      You have zero support for the statement that no one survived the Black Sea flood. Zero. The is totally, completely and utterly unsupported. What we DO know is that people DO survive even massive floods. That’s a fact.

      But the OT says that there no human or non-human animal survivors (outside of the ark). None. All are evil, all die. You yourself said that God has to start humanity over again, an unneeded action if this is a local flood. These facts alone falsify the hypothesis that the words of the OT are referring to a local flood, whether in the Black Sea or otherwise.

      The Black Sea flood did NOT cover any of the following modern day countries. Iraq. Israel. Lebanon. Syria. Jordan. Egypt. These are the “biblical land.” None of these lands are covered by the Black Sea flood. This is not the flood described in Genesis.

      And the only way to make the dates work is by taking the position that other parts of the OT are wrong.

      Didn’t you notice that Bishop says that the Black Sea flood doesn’t fit the biblical narrative. You promote Bishop when he gives you what you want, but you ignore him when he demonstrates that you are wrong.

      Wood:

      Yes, Wood presupposes his conclusion. Your own words prove it. When you say “he simply believes that the evidence went wrong somewhere,” you prove my point. He will never accept evidence that disproves his absolute and unshakably belief that the OT account of the destruction of Jericho is absolute truth in every detail. I know this, you know this. Any evidence that shows that he is wrong will always be dismissed as “wrong somewhere.” This is not how science works.

      C14:

      When the C14 dates support the conclusion you like, then they are correct. When they don’t, then we have “offsets.” Interesting.

      Could you provide me with a reference to a secular peer-reviewed journal article which says that objects which should date to right at 1400 BC are being incorrectly dating as 1550 BC? Show how an object that is 3400 years will produce a date of 3550 years old. Where is the peer-reviewed article in a secular scientific journal which says that the corrected radiometric date for the destruction of Jericho is 1400 BC?

      Pre-Abrahamic dates:

      Yes, I know that you didn’t uses pre-Abe dates in your post. But you missed my point. Your post triumphantly proclaims that archaeology proves the “literal truth” of the Bible. You then proceed to demonstrate that the OT is NOT literally true when it comes to the pre-Abe dates. The pre-Abe dates are wrong.

      Who cares if some of the OT has literal truth? Unless the whole thing is true, the OT is just another ancient text. You’re saying the the pre-Abe dates are wrong. They are false. They can’t be trusted. So, you post is proclaiming the Bible has “literal truth” is pointless.

      David’s slings and etymology:

      That’s right, even if David had a thousand slings, we wouldn’t find them. So, again, all you have to support the story is (1) Gath existed, and (2) one hundred years after the alleged David and Goliath death match, there was someone in Gath named Goliath. That’s the list. The events in the Iliad are far better supported than the D and G thing.

      And given how strongly the Iliad is supported by archaeology, is there any reason to think that it got the names wrong? Isn’t Troy located where the Iliad says it was located? Didn’t the Greeks and Trojans fight where the Iliad says they fought? Wasn’t Troy sacked? And the facts of the Trojan War were accurately transmitted by oral tradition for centuries.

      The Bible is 100 percent correct?:

      You’ve already shown the the OT is not correct. See the pre-Abrahamic dates. They are wrong.

      And the order in which life appears on earth is wrong. And Adam naming all of the animals is wrong. And everyone dying in the Flood is wrong. And the conquest of Canaan narrative is wrong (see Dever). Want some more examples? We only need one, you know.

      Like

      • “What Noah knew:
        You asked me to read Bishop’s article. I did so.
        Bishop says life 4000 years ago was very limited (note that Bishop dates the biblical flood at 4000 years ago, a date incompatible with the the Black Sea flood)”

        Bishop does NOT accept the 4,000 year view, he probably wrote that on a whim. If you actually read Bishop’s article, you’ll realize he ADVOCATES for the 7,500 year old flood I previously mentioned. Furthermore, Bishop’s view on when the flood happened is irrelevant — what I care about is his biblical evidence for a local flood.

        “Therefore, based on what BISHOP says, to our observer named Noah, the local area is literally the “entire world.” The local area is not a part of a bigger world, it’s ALL of the world. ”

        This is also false, you continue to misrepresent Bishop. Bishop shows that the phraseology of calling something the whole world would be used in the ancient world to simply reference their own local kingdom. The ancients did not believe that their local kingdom was the whole world, it was simply the whole world that they knew, and were familiar with. The rest would almost be an “outside world”, foreign lands that all you know about is that they want to battle you and take your lands.

        Now that I’ve fully explained the meaning of “whole world” to you in an ancient context, there is no longer any need for me to continue pursuing this conversation with you. If you still cannot get it, you are simply helpless and incapable of progressing to producing a fair view regarding the facts we have. If you still deny that anything I previously said so far in this comment is anything but pure fact, then you are simply unable to understand reality or are too biased for it.

        “You’ve already shown the the OT is not correct. ”

        LOL

        “When the C14 dates support the conclusion you like, then they are correct. When they don’t, then we have “offsets.” Interesting.
        Could you provide me with a reference to a secular peer-reviewed journal article which says that objects which should date to right at 1400 BC are being incorrectly dating as 1550 BC? ”

        You are being too specific — I can show you a number of papers easily that show a 100-200 year offset from dates before 1400 BC, but asking for a specifically 1550 BC mention is nonsensical.

        Here are papers you need to look at:

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5773/548

        http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/06/new-dates-egypts-pharaohs

        https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/div-classtitleradiocarbon-and-the-date-of-the-thera-eruptiondiv/925806E13E9A690ABFD1613F14F507A6

        That should be enough.

        “What we DO know is that people DO survive even massive floods. That’s a fact.”

        No, they don’t. Massive flood == dead person. They all die unless they are out of range of the flood. If you get hammered by flooding waters that stretch two kilometers high, you’re dead. Simple as that.

        “You yourself said that God has to start humanity over again, an unneeded action if this is a local flood”

        When was this said? We’ve already quantified whole world == local kingdom. Everyone in the local kingdom dies. Read Bishop’s article again.

        “And given how strongly the Iliad is supported by archaeology, is there any reason to think that it got the names wrong? Isn’t Troy located where the Iliad says it was located? Didn’t the Greeks and Trojans fight where the Iliad says they fought? Wasn’t Troy sacked? And the facts of the Trojan War were accurately transmitted by oral tradition for centuries. ”

        LOL. There’s “no reason to think Iliad was wrong about the names” is not an argument. As for the Trojan War, you seem to know EXTREMELY little about history — the war is completely mythical and never happened. ROFL.

        That fail was a little too funny. You attempt to show the amazing etymological correspondence between the Bible’s names and actual ancient names is not significant, and to do so, you appeal to an event… That never happened! This is too good. This also crushes the veracity of the Iliad, which is the one text you tried to appeal to in order to try to get some kind of equivalent to the Bible when it comes to the overwhelming reliability of scriptures and the factualiy of the God of the Bible. AMEN!

        “Did you know that Bryant Wood is a young earther? What do you suppose that tells us about how he handles data?”

        Yep, I knew that — but considering I’ve never seen Wood try to argue for it and I’ve never seen any relevance of Wood’s creationism in his historical data and work, I see this fact as irrelevant. Isaac Newton believed in alchemy.

        Like

    • A footnote.

      Did you know that Bryant Wood is a young earther? What do you suppose that tells us about how he handles data? Think that maybe we could have some problems with presuppositions here?

      Like

    • Bishop:

      Bishop said “4000 years” on a whim? Are you sure this was a whim? Like the title of this post is an exaggeration? So, how am I supposed to know when I can trust what you and/or Bishop is saying? You and Bishop don’t actually mean what you are saying? This is very confusing.

      Have I misrepresented Bishop’s words? I thought I was quoting him pretty closely. I was just using Bishop’s own words. Yes, I understood that he was also saying that Hebrew word which mean “entire world” don’t actually mean “entire world.” I understood that from the start. I understood the way in which he was interpreting the Hebrew words. My point was that this interpretation of the words is badly uncut by what Bishop himself says at the start of the article. You follow?

      Does Bishop advocate for the 7500 year old flood as Noah’s flood. Re-read the sentence that starts “Some difficulties and conflicts are evident…”. Bishop understands that there are big problems with the hypothesis that the Black Sea flood is Noah’s flood. Do you?

      Black Sea flood:

      Yes, people survive massive floods. Show me a documented flood with a 100 percent mortality rate. Yes, mortality rates are higher in the center of the flood zone compared to the edges, but people within the flood zone survive. Are you arguing the water was two kilometers deep at every point of the earth covered by the flood waters or within the flood zone and zero feet deep everywhere else? No flood produces a 100 percent mortality rate.

      More to follow.

      Like

      • “Bishop said “4000 years” on a whim? Are you sure this was a whim? Like the title of this post is an exaggeration? So, how am I supposed to know when I can trust what you and/or Bishop is saying?”

        It’s very simple — Bishop directly said that the Biblical flood was the Mediterranean one that I talked about earlier. If you read Bishop’s blog, it becomes very clear very fast that he isn’t a young earther.

        “Yes, people survive massive floods. Show me a documented flood with a 100 percent mortality rate.”

        There has never been a single flood in documented history at the level of the one 7,500 years ago — and all documented floods exist in a time where technology has allowed us to get people out of the situation before the flood even comes in.

        If you know anything about the 7,500 yo flood we’re talking about, there’s obviously no doubt everyone died. It would be impossible for anyone to survive such a flood.

        “Let’s test the Black Sea hypothesis. According to the OT, where was Noah living at the time of the flood? What accounted for or provided the water for the flood (what was the source of the water)? What tools did Noah use to build the ark? Where did Noah’s boat land at the end of the flood?”

        Most of these questions are irrelevant. I’m not going through a Bible exegesis right now to tell you where Noah was and where he landed (although they are told), and the “tools” Noah used? We know the Ark was made of “gopher wood”, according to the Bible, but whatever gopher wood is no longer known to us today as it was thousands of years ago. It must have been some pretty tough wood, I can tell you that.

        “Again and again and again, you continue to miss my point about legends. They are a mix of fact and fiction. I am NOT saying that every event in the Iliad actually happened exactly as described in this text.”

        Actually, NOTHING the Iliad said had any relevance to reality! There WAS NO war, there WERE NO names, it’s all a fiction. Every part of that. You have not shown any extraordinary details the Iliad got regarding anything with relevance to the land of Troy, unlike what we have with Goliath. So you have utterly failed to show the ancients “mixing fact with fiction”.

        “Now, as you know, there is massive and overwhelming evidence that the earth is not 6000 to 10000 years old. Wood knows the data, too, and he clearly rejects what the data say. So, we know how he handles any data that conflicts with his faith. So, how do you suppose he handles the data from Jericho? Is there the slightest chance he’ll interpret the data in a way that conflicts with his faith?
        And now the conclusion…”

        Wood’s creationism remains to have nothing with his archaeology. What does Wood do with the data? Who on planet Earth knows, I’ve never seen Wood reply to old earth view, ever. So we really have no idea. Maybe he has never researched it? Or just presumes it’s wrong but doesn’t actually try to show how? Or simply throws C14 dating as nonsensical? Or something like that? Who knows, not us for sure. So we do not know how Wood deals with data that contradicts his view — but there is little data contradicting Jericho’s destruction.

        “Your links completely failed to answer the question that I raised. Let me try rephrasing this, and you can try again if you’d like.
        Ok, so a grain-bearing plant begins to grow around 1400 BC. Material from this plant is preserved in Jericho around the time of its origin. Several millennia later, this material is carbon-dated. If this material is really and truly growing in 1400 BC, why would such material produce a date of 1550 BC when carbon-dated? ”

        The cause of the C14 enigma is not yet shown, and my links completely proved my point: All these papers have exactly stated and shown that C14 dates are off by 100-200 years (avg. 150) for any dates before 1400 BC. There is an abundance of scholarly research on this subject. All of my papers documented this. So there’s absolutely no problem. Some Scholars think the offset is due to the Thera Eruption. But no one really knows exactly why there’s an offset of about 150 years for dates 1400 – 1670 BC and 120 years for dates 1670 BC – 2200 (about) BC. But it’s there. And I’ve just shown you that.

        Like

    • Black Sea flood:

      Let’s test the Black Sea hypothesis. According to the OT, where was Noah living at the time of the flood? What accounted for or provided the water for the flood (what was the source of the water)? What tools did Noah use to build the ark? Where did Noah’s boat land at the end of the flood?

      When did you say “God has to start had to start humanity again?” Re-read you own comments. You’ll find your words in the dead babies section of the program. Yes, you said it. Unlike you, I’m not exaggerating here.

      Trojan War:

      Again and again and again, you continue to miss my point about legends. They are a mix of fact and fiction. I am NOT saying that every event in the Iliad actually happened exactly as described in this text.

      However, I think most historian of this period in time would be quite suprised to discover, as you suggest, that there were no military conflicts at all between the peoples on either side of the Aegean Sea during the time period covered by the Iliad. I doubt if there are many historians and archaeologists who would describe the “Trojan War” as “completely mythical.”

      We’re talking legend here. Like Noah’s flood. And probably David and Goliath. Mix of fact and fiction. By the way, I believe that the name “Achilles” appears in the Linear B texts, which would put the name in use at the time of the events in the Iliad. You know, like the name Goliath in Gath.

      Bryant Wood:

      Again, you missed the point. Wood starts with an absolute faith that certain events happened in a certain way. Now, as you know, there is massive and overwhelming evidence that the earth is not 6000 to 10000 years old. Wood knows the data, too, and he clearly rejects what the data say. So, we know how he handles any data that conflicts with his faith. So, how do you suppose he handles the data from Jericho? Is there the slightest chance he’ll interpret the data in a way that conflicts with his faith?

      And now the conclusion…

      Like

    • C14:

      Your links completely failed to answer the question that I raised. Let me try rephrasing this, and you can try again if you’d like.

      Ok, so a grain-bearing plant begins to grow around 1400 BC. Material from this plant is preserved in Jericho around the time of its origin. Several millennia later, this material is carbon-dated. If this material is really and truly growing in 1400 BC, why would such material produce a date of 1550 BC when carbon-dated? Please explain this. I don’t need links, just explain this in your own words.

      And while we’re at it, I’m still looking for a peer-reviewed paper in a secular scientific journal which says that radiocarbon dating shows that Jericho was destroyed around 1400 BC.

      Finally:

      Yes, the OT contains errors. You mostly ignored the errors that I’ve pointed out to you. And the Black Sea flood is not Noah’s flood. It doesn’t fit the OT narrative.

      Like

    • Mortality rates in floods:

      So, you have no examples of documented floods with 100 percent mortality rates. But you’re happy to make whatever assumptions are needed about a 7500 year old flood in order to get the result you want.

      For the OT to be true, any and all areas affected “Noah’s flood” must have 100 percent mortality rates. This obviously cannot be. I don’t care how “massive” a flood is at its most devastating point. Clearly there will be very large areas which are flooded, but which also experience relatively or much low mortality rates. This should. E easy to see and understand.

      Unless your flood is “two kilometers” deep (I believe this depth you proposed) at all points covered with water, there’s no 100 percent mortality rate. But obviously, that’s not how water behaves. Water spreads out. So in floods, the depth of the water and the intensity of the flood varies from point to point within the flood itself. It is impossible to produce 100 percent mortality rates at all points within a flood zone. So the OT is wrong.

      But let’s assume we have flood waters which stretch two kilometers high at the point where Noah meets the flood. This is the proposed location of the 100 percent mortality rate, right? Ok, so the approaching water is 2000 meters high, and Noah’s boat is sitting on the ground and is about 15 to 20 meters high.

      See the problem? The incoming water is literally 100 times higher than Noah’s boat! So what happens when water meets boat? Boat is destroyed, Noah is dead. Really dead.

      You see, to get your 100 percent mortality rate, you need flood conditions so severe and so intense that NO ONE can survive them, boat or no boat. (And this is putting aside the fact the technology available at the time is not even remotely close to being sufficient to build a boat that is larger than any documented boat ever built.)

      And…

      Like

      • “So, you have no examples of documented floods with 100 percent mortality rates.”

        I already explained the logical problem with comparing a 21st century flood, which can be evaded even before it hits the land with modern technology, and the 7,500 year old flood that has never been paralleled in documented human history before the bronze age even commenced.

        “For the OT to be true, any and all areas affected “Noah’s flood” must have 100 percent mortality rates. This obviously cannot be.”

        Assertions are useless unless backed up — you’ve failed to show how a nomad living 7,500 years ago could survive flood waters that stretch two kilometers over the surface of the land.

        “Unless your flood is “two kilometers” deep (I believe this depth you proposed) at all points covered with water, there’s no 100 percent mortality rate.”

        Of course there is, because even at 100 meters deep all the nomads are going to die!

        “Ok, so the approaching water is 2000 meters high, and Noah’s boat is sitting on the ground and is about 15 to 20 meters high.
        See the problem? The incoming water is literally 100 times higher than Noah’s boat! So what happens when water meets boat? Boat is destroyed, Noah is dead. Really dead.”

        Knowing the answer to this is impossible since we weren’t there to witness it — so the question is mostly presumptuous. Anyways, I’ve found no facts backing up any of your claims against the flood.

        “Your statement that the Iliad is all fiction is not supportable. And your “extraordinary” details with respect to the David and Goliath story consist of a name found in Gath about 100 years after the David and Goliath events and the fact that Gath existed. That’s the list.
        Well, the Iliad got the name Achilles right, and the existence of Troy right, and there’s a destruction layer within the walls of Troy that dates to about the right point in time. So, this is extraordinary, right?”

        It got the existence of Troy right? That is hardly relevant — knowing Gath exists is one thing, but being familiar with the very known names of people from this land is another thing that shoots off the idea of these texts being written centuries later. And what do you mean the Iliad got “Achilles” name right? Where is your ancient pot with ‘Achilles’ written on it in Troy in the time of the Iliad? The Iliad speaks of a completely fictional battle — but you apparently thought it was real and so tried for a quick shootout of my point.

        It’s almost funny when you think about it. A typical skeptic will errorfully claim there lacks evidence for Biblical narratives, but will gladly believe in any fiction (Trojan War) without actually looking for evidence! Why is this a double standard? And why can’t the skeptic finally admit the evidence is too great to even understand?

        “Your defense of Wood appears to rest on the assumption that he is stone cold ignorant of the observations of modern geology, paleontology, biogeography, etc., etc. How likely is this? Do you really think that a man dedicated to showing that the Bible is literally true from the very first word of Genesis is as ignorant as you suggest? Really? ”

        That is not my position… I rather side with the fact that he understands the evidence, but on faith alone sides with a young earth date. Wood has not publicly advocated for young earth creationism or has made pseudo-scientific defenses of it. So where is the veracity of a position against Wood here?

        Regarding the C14 dates, it seems you blundered a few times and in fact accidentally refuted yourself.

        Your first error was the claim that all my papers were on the Thera Eruption. One of them was on the issue of the Thera Eruption, a second one talked about it but generally focused on the C14 dates, and the third one to my knowledge has nothing to say about the Thera Eruption.

        Secondly, you say that the C14 dates of King Tut are close to the archaeological dates. Have you missed something? As I explained, dates earlier than 1400 BC have an offset, but Tut reigned decades after 1400 BC, and thus is unaffected by this offset that I have shown in all the papers I posted.

        Funnily enough, you concede that the dating of the Thera Eruption is about 1500 BC. It seems you missed the part where C14 dates put Thera’s eruption at 1650 – 1600 BC — thereby proving my point for me, pre-1400 BC dates are off by about 150 years on average, as shown from the papers I’ve posted. Archaeologists agree on this, there’s not much room for dispute.

        Like

    • Testing the local flood hypothesis:

      All of my questions are relevant. You wish to claim that the Black Sea flood is Noah’s flood. How do you know this? You don’t. It’s just a guess.

      So we need to test the hypothesis. How do we do this? We ask questions which will allow us to test the hypothesis that the description of events in the Bible matches geological and archaeological record. Now, since “archaeology proves the literal truth of the Bible,” this should easy! And it’s absolutely critical if your hypothesis is to have any credibility.

      But you can’t do this. You won’t test the hypothesis. Instead, you duck and weave and divert with something about gopher wood…which I didn’t ask about. You know the truth. The Black Sea flood does not fit the OT narrative.

      Troy:

      Your statement that the Iliad is all fiction is not supportable. And your “extraordinary” details with respect to the David and Goliath story consist of a name found in Gath about 100 years after the David and Goliath events and the fact that Gath existed. That’s the list.

      Well, the Iliad got the name Achilles right, and the existence of Troy right, and there’s a destruction layer within the walls of Troy that dates to about the right point in time. So, this is extraordinary, right?

      Wood:

      Your defense of Wood appears to rest on the assumption that he is stone cold ignorant of the observations of modern geology, paleontology, biogeography, etc., etc. How likely is this? Do you really think that a man dedicated to showing that the Bible is literally true from the very first word of Genesis is as ignorant as you suggest? Really?

      Yes, we know how Wood reacts to data which contradict his views.

      And finally…

      Like

    • C14

      Your links are to papers about the Thera eruption. And now you’ve added some hand waving, but not much analysis.

      There are various dates hypothesized for the Thera eruption. However, the latest or most recent date offered (based on non-radiometric methods) is about 1500 BC. Of all hypothesized dates, this is the one closest to Wood’s proposed date for the destruction of Jericho. But this is still 100 years before the proposed destruction date of 1400 BC. Other hypothesized are even more distant in time from 1400 BC.

      Now, even if the 1500 BC date for the eruption is correct (which is unlikely), how does this lead to an error in radiometric dating of annual grains which grew in 1400 BC? That is, why would a volcanic eruption which occurred 100 years earlier mess up the dating of materials from 1400 BC? Why would a 1500 BC produce an “offset” of 150 years in grains that actually grew in 1400 BC? Why?

      Further, the radiometric dating of Thera appears to be based on an olive branch. Olive trees are not annuals. This is a different sort of plant material than annual grains, and it presents challenges that are different from the dating of annual grains. So, comparing olive branch dating to grain dating is mixing apples and oranges.

      So what you are doing here is taking the specific problem of dating the Thera eruption and generalizing this problem to all radiometric dating of any material from mid-second millennium BC. What you have failed to do is show why the specific case of the radiometric dating of material from Canaan, which you believe would actually date to 1400 BC, would produce a date of 1550 BC. As I’ve said, you failed to answer my original question.

      Also, did you notice what the one paper said about radioacarbon dating and Egyptian chronologies? “Radiocarbon study concludes that much of the assumed chronology is correct.” In particular, radiocarbon dating for King Tut (the king mentioned in the paper who was closest to the magic date of 1400 BC) is pretty damn close to the dates derived from archaeology. No 150 year offset here. Instead, radiodating from around 1330 to 1350 looks pretty good. So, there is little or no reason to think that radiocarbon dating would fail to produce a date of around 1400 BC for Jericho IF, in fact, that’s when Jericho was destroyed.

      Like

    • Black Sea flood:

      I notice that you say that the Black Sea flood pre-dates the Bronze Age. So how did Noah and a handful of men build a boat that was bigger than any document boat ever built? What did they use for tools? Wooden saws? Obviously, a flood that pre-dates the Bronze Age cannot be Noah’s flood. Your hypothesis is disproved.

      You criticize my “assertions” while ignoring the fact that you’ve packed your reply with numerous assertions of your own. How do you know that a “nomad” can’t survive a 100 meter flood? Did you witness this? Stuff floats, you know. And people can cling to floating stuff.

      And, the flood waters aren’t 100 meters deep at all points within the flood zone. In places, the depth would be, say, 10 meters deep. All still part of Noah’s flood, but easily survivable. No 100 percent mortality rate. I repeat, within a single flood event, the mortality rates will vary with location. That’s not assertion, that’s a fact. That’s easily observable. And that’s been true as long as there have been floods and not just in the 21st century.

      You cannot explain how a 15 meter-high boat survives the hit from a 2000 meter-high wave front. But not because it’s “impossible” to know the answer. We know the answer. Noah dies. I know it, you know it. Again, if we assume a flood that is so severe and so massive that it has a 100 percent mortality rate, then everyone dies. Everyone. Noah, too. And all of the animals in the ark. This is staggeringly obvious, even in the absence of witnesses. You can’t kill all of the “evil” people without killing Noah. The only reason to conclude otherwise is blind faith.

      Like

      • “I notice that you say that the Black
        Sea flood pre-dates the Bronze Age. So how did Noah and a handful of men build a boat that was bigger than any document boat ever built?”

        No clue how it was done, but God made it certain to happen without question. Anyways, Noah had over a century to get the boat done, not much problematic seems to be present.

        “Your hypothesis is disproved. ”

        Woops, nope.

        Your entire argument seems to be “I can’t imagine how it could have possibly been done, therefore it is false”. Ouch. Search up “argument from personal incredulity”.

        “How do you know that a “nomad” can’t survive a 100 meter flood?”

        Because I have a brain.

        ” Stuff floats, you know. And people can cling to floating stuff. ”

        Oh yeah, maybe the people sinking on the Titatnic who didn’t have access to a safety boat to escape should’ve clung on to floating stuff! LOL.

        It’s an absolute fact that the mortality rate of a 2 kilometer high water flood of 150,000 tons of water has a 100% mortality rate with nomads. This is undisprovable.

        You continue unloading your dogmatic assertions in a way that is, at best, laughable. You have no evidence against a flood that I have proven happened. The Biblical story is confirmed, end of discussion.

        “Yes, your claim that the Iliad is completely fictional is unsupportable. You acknowledge that it gets the existence of Troy right, so right there, you acknowledge that it is not completely fictional. QED. And yes, there is evidence of conflict in Troy at the time of the events describe in the Iliad. ”

        There isn’t a figment of such evidence. The “time” that the Iliad describes the battle? Please enlighten me about this “time”, because the Iliad gives us not a clue, nor is there a figment of evidence that the lost city of Troy had any conflict during the non-existent time that the Iliad describes the events.

        Getting Troy right is such a miniature accomplishment that it is virtually irrelevant. What we have with the Goliath story is overwhelmingly greater than this. Your support of the Iliad is equal to the amount of evidence that appears for the Bible for just about every archaeological dig in Israel to ever happen. You so much as put a shovel into the dirt in Israel and confirmation of the Bible equal to what you have for the Iliad appears.

        ” I didn’t say that Achilles name was found in Troy. I said that this is a Greek name from the time of the Iliad.”

        Achilles is a Greek name? Aside from your lack of evidence for that, I’m starting to think you’re a troll. The Iliad is a Greek work. Greeks knowing names of Greeks is irrelevant. Show me names from foreign lands that the Iliad gets right, such as the Israelite’s getting names from Gath, a Philistine city, right.

        “And the problem is not just a “lack of evidence” for the biblical narrative. The problem is also that there is contradictory evidence, evidence that positively disproves that biblical narrative, evidence that you have repeatedly ignored. ”

        No such evidence exists. Did you miss everything we were discussing earlier?

        “Yes, on faith alone, he asserts that the Earth is young. How much clearer can it be that it’s faith that directs Wood to his conclusions about past and NOT evidence?”

        And there falters your argument. When Wood doesn’t have evidence for something, he does not claim to have evidence for it. Wood clearly has evidence for the dating of the destruction of Jericho. You have failed to disprove Wood’s evidence, which is saturated with evidence, regarding the dating of Jericho’s destruction. You haven’t a figment of evidence he’s wrong, and appealing to his creationism is a laughable way to support your position. You’re wasting my time if your Ad Hominem Fallacy (argument is wrong because of the person who made the argument) is going to work here.

        “Since it’s the Thera eruption that is alleged to a count for the alleged 150 year “offset,” this is where I focused my attention. ”

        It is not “alleged” so much as it is proposed for a possible explanation as to why the C14 dates are off by over a century.

        “This was the reign that was closest in time to the magic date of 1400 BC. If Tut’s reign can be be accurately dated to around 1330 to 1340 BC using radiometric dating, there’s no reason to think that if we go further back in time just to 60 to 70 years earlier (1400 BC), then all of a sudden, we’re going to get a whopping error of 150 years.”

        Good Lord, your dishonesty is explosive. When I tell you that dates before 1400 BC are off, I mean dates before 1400 BC, not 1330 BC. Your claim that there is “no reason” for radiometric dating to be off is demonstrably false, because it is off. By centuries. I’ve already posted numerous papers that say exactly this, they are off, they don’t fit at all with the archaeological evidence. The data is already there, it’s already been shown. I have linked you to some of this data, but you seem to be unphased by it. Indeed, it couldn’t possibly be true, because if it was, that means you would be wrong. And you most assuredly can’t be wrong.
        /sarcasm off

        “But if want something from a date older than 1400 BC, then just check out the radiometric dates in the paper for the start of the New Kingdom and the reign of Ahmose I. Now we’re talking about dates around 1550 BC. You know, dates similar to those calculated by radiometric methods for the sacking of Jericho.
        And look. The dates for Ahmose I are within a decade or two of the dates derived by other archaeology methods!”

        It’s almost as if you’re utterly clueless when it comes to dates. It almost seems as if you’re postulating that the dating for the reign of Ahmose… Is radiometric dating. LOL. Has it ever occurred to you that… It ISNT? If you know anything, anything at all about archaeology, you’d know that Ahmose’s reign, and the reign of other pharaohs, entirely have NOTHING TO DO with C14 dates! LOOL. Please open a book for once in your life. Ahmose’s reign is not based off of C14. You seem to think so however, considering you saw the word “date” and the only dating method you’re aware of existing is C14.

        Like

    • The Iliad:

      Yes, your claim that the Iliad is completely fictional is unsupportable. You acknowledge that it gets the existence of Troy right, so right there, you acknowledge that it is not completely fictional. QED. And yes, there is evidence of conflict in Troy at the time of the events describe in the Iliad.

      Of course it’s part fictional! I never said otherwise, so please do not misrepresent my position. However, there is evidence that it is not completely fictional.

      Where is the pot with Goliath’s name on it from the time of the battle between David and Goliath? I didn’t say that Achilles name was found in Troy. I said that this is a Greek name from the time of the Iliad. You had argued that purely fictional accounts of alleged past events would use names that don’t fit the time of the events. A purely fictional story would use names that didn’t exist at the time of the story. Achilles is a name in the Iliad that was also in use at the time of the events in the Iliad. You follow?

      And the problem is not just a “lack of evidence” for the biblical narrative. The problem is also that there is contradictory evidence, evidence that positively disproves that biblical narrative, evidence that you have repeatedly ignored. Order in which life appeared on Earth, etc.

      Wood:

      Yes, on faith alone, he asserts that the Earth is young. How much clearer can it be that it’s faith that directs Wood to his conclusions about past and NOT evidence? So is there any chance, any chance at all, that he will conclude that the evidence from Jericho says that Jericho was sacked in 1550 BC? There is zero chance of this, and you know it. And this is NOT how science works.

      Like

    • And finally, C14:

      All three of the papers you linked mentioned the Thera eruption. All three. Read them again. I didn’t “blunder.” I read what was in the links. Since it’s the Thera eruption that is alleged to a count for the alleged 150 year “offset,” this is where I focused my attention. Since you’re obssessed with “offsets,” this is what I addressed. Should I have done otherwise?

      Had you read my comments carefully, you would have seen that I did NOT “concede” the Thera eruption occurred in 1500 BC. I just used this date as the most conservative date when considering the effects of a volcano on the dating of materials from 1400 BC Please read more carefully next time. And you seem to have totally missed the point that the radiometric dating of the Thera eruption present challenges which are different from what we encounter when dating annual grains from Jericho. Again, please read what what I said more carefully before commenting.

      You clearly missed why I picked the Tut example. This was the reign that was closest in time to the magic date of 1400 BC. If Tut’s reign can be be accurately dated to around 1330 to 1340 BC using radiometric dating, there’s no reason to think that if we go further back in time just to 60 to 70 years earlier (1400 BC), then all of a sudden, we’re going to get a whopping error of 150 years. Again, not a blunder, you just missed the point.

      But if want something from a date older than 1400 BC, then just check out the radiometric dates in the paper for the start of the New Kingdom and the reign of Ahmose I. Now we’re talking about dates around 1550 BC. You know, dates similar to those calculated by radiometric methods for the sacking of Jericho.

      And look. The dates for Ahmose I are within a decade or two of the dates derived by other archaeology methods! There is NO 150 year offset! The magical offset you used to try to save the 1400 BC date for Jericho isn’t there. It’s gone.

      As the paper itself says, the radiometric dating from the period in question is actually pretty good. It’s a decent match to the archeological evidence. The paper that you linked to shows that you are wrong to magically adjust the the radiometric dating for Jericho by 150 years. As you might say, you seem to have refuted yourself.

      Like

    • Back Sea flood:

      So. Nothing problematic? A man who literally lived in the Stone Age built a wooden boat of a size that’s never been duplicated? Now THIS is blind faith.

      Next you accuse me of using an argument from personal incredulity. And then in the very next paragraph, you use this very same type argument when you argue that no nomad could survive a 100 meter flood!! There’s a word for this. It starts with “H.”

      (And what killed people in the Titanic sinking was very cold water. It wasn’t the depth of the water, it was the temperature.)

      And having asserted that a 100 meter deep flood has a 100 percent mortality rates, you then assert that Noah and his ark could survive a wave front that is 100 times higher than the ark! We’re talking about a wall of water that is the height of about five Empire State buildings! You can’t have this both ways. You can’t kill all nomads with 100 meters of water while saying that Noah survived a wave front of 2000 meters of water. Blind, blind faith. The evidence against the conclusion that the Black Sea flood is overwhelming.

      But here’s the real problem. It’s the statement that “God made it certain to happen without question.” This makes it clear that any and all evidence which contradicts or disproves the Bible will be rejected before it is even presented. If archaeology, geology, paleontology, historic texts, logic and reason all disprove the Bible, you will respond: “No they don’t because…MIRACLE!” God made certain that it happened!” So, ultimately, your post has nothing to do with evidence or science, because things are irrelevant to the conclusions that you draw.

      Now, as an assertion of theology, this is fine. As an assertion of blind faith, this is fine. But this is NOT science, and your use of the word “science” in the title of your blog is a fraud. In science, you didn’t get to dismiss mountains of contradictory evidence by saying…”MIRACLE!” You don’t get to just count the time that the evidence doesn’t contradict your hypothesis. You have to count all of the data. And the data show that the Bible gets it wrong. Repeatedly. Unfortunately, your faith has blinded you.

      Like

      • “So. Nothing problematic? A man who literally lived in the Stone Age built a wooden boat of a size that’s never been duplicated? Now THIS is blind faith. ”

        Considering Noah was backed up by God and had over a century to get the thing done, how could he have possibly failed? That’s the true question.

        “(And what killed people in the Titanic sinking was very cold water. It wasn’t the depth of the water, it was the temperature.) ”

        They died because of cold water AND drowning. By the way, you seem to have gotten hung up over the 100 meter thing, even though it’s not viable. The evidence says 2km high. It’s funny you ask how could a boat as enormous as Noah’s Ark take the impact of the 2km flood when it hit it, five times the height of the empire state building, yet you seem to think that some nomads could have taken the impact of a 2km flood! LOL!

        “If archaeology, geology, paleontology, historic texts, logic and reason all disprove the Bible, you will respond: “No they don’t because…MIRACLE!” God made certain that it happened!” So, ultimately, your post has nothing to do with evidence or science, because things are irrelevant to the conclusions that you draw. ”

        False, the ENTIRE STORY of Noah’s Ark is dependent on miracles. My post is 100% about science, evidence and logic, whereas you think that if something cannot be NATURALLY done, then therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist and the Bible isn’t true! This is not a coherent approach.

        “You’ve taken the extreme position that the Iliad is complete fiction and that there is nothing in the archaeological record which can be connected to anything in the Iliad.”

        The Iliad may have some hints of truth here and there, but if you want to even TRY to compare the archaeological validation of the Iliad to even a single book of the Bible, you’re going to be in a world of problems. I have seen virtually nothing to back up the Iliad.

        “I’ve shown you the connections between archaeology and the Iliad. You’ve rejected the evidence that is right in front of you. ”

        LOL! This is what you showed me:

        The Iliad talks about a war that never happened (Trojan War)
        The Iliad places this war in some lost city (Troy) that has never been found
        The Iliad has accurate names from this never-found city (????)

        I think it’s quite clear that your evidence for the Iliad is ZILCH, ZIP, NADDA, ZERO.

        “It not an “ad hominem argument” when the point is made that Wood is a man who always starts with an absolute, indisputable conclusion before he examines the data.”

        False, Wood has accepted he is wrong on multiple things many times.

        “Explosively dishonest? I explained my reason for using the King Tut’s reign. There was absolutely no dishonesty here”

        You clearly took the pre-1400 BC offset and tried to apply it to post 1400 BC people. Your appeal to Tut is indefensible. C14 shows no discrepancy with post-1400 BC dates that go as far back as the 1340’s BC.

        Back to the three papers I posted. I already know their contents, and I know that one of them (the one you talked about) does in fact support the radiocarbon dates over Egyptian chronology. However, there are no “THOUSANDS” of C14 dates to support the radiocarbon methodology. Why didn’t you read the other two papers I posted? Here’s a quotation from one of them:

        ” But it’s difficult to be precise. For example, the first known pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, was built as a tomb for King Djoser, and historians usually put the beginning of his reign between 2667 and 2592 B.C.E. But one recent paper by Spence, based on astronomical calculations, put it as much as 75 years later. Radiocarbon dating has been too imprecise to resolve these contradictions because in this period it usually has error ranges of between 100 and 200 years.”

        Manfred Bietak, a renowned scholar in the field affirms the 150-year discrepancy between 1670-1400 BC and 120 year discrepancy between dates from 22?? – 1670 BC.

        Many researchers have started revising radiocarbon dates to increase their accuracy. For example, take a look at this paper which pushes back the C14 date for the beginning of the NK (in other words, researchers are now calibrating C14 dates):

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5985/1554

        I don’t know if the following link works, but if it does work, here is a link to the full paper:

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/328/5985/1554.full.pdf

        This should put a nail in the coffin.

        Like

    • The Iliad:

      You’ve taken the extreme position that the Iliad is complete fiction and that there is nothing in the archaeological record which can be connected to anything in the Iliad. You say that there is nothing in the archaeological record that suggests that even a tiny bit of the Iliad might be based on actual people, actual people and/or actual events. It’s all fiction and all a figment of the imagination.

      I’ve shown you the connections between archaeology and the Iliad. You’ve rejected the evidence that is right in front of you. So, it is officially a waste of time to pursue this part of the discussion.

      Wood:

      It not an “ad hominem argument” when the point is made that Wood is a man who always starts with an absolute, indisputable conclusion before he examines the data. This is simply describing his methods and the way in which he approches data. I’m simply describing how Wood operates.

      You didn’t answer the key question here. Even before he looked at the data, was there even the slightest chance that he would conclude that the date of the sacking of Jericho was a date that would contradict the OT? The answer? No. Not an ad hom, just a fact. Again, this isn’t how science is done.

      I have much more than a “figment” of evidence that he is wrong. I have the radiocarbon dating from the destruction layer of Jericho. That’s a BIG figment. MAJOR evidence that Wood is wrong.

      Like

    • Black Sea flood:

      A handful of of Stone Age men with Stone Age tools could not build a boat that was larger than any other wooden boat ever built. If you doubt what I am saying, then get together with a couple of you buddies, grab some Stone Age tools, build an ark, and sail the open ocean for a few months. Call me when you finished. And giving them a year to do this doesn’t help. Isn’t Noah a nomad? Nomads do not stay in one place for a year.

      Just say that God built the boat, it was all a miracle and be done with it. But don’t claim that any of this has anything to do with doing science or that you are a “Scientific Christian.”

      About nomads surviving a 2000 meter wave front. I never said that nomads could take a 2000 meter wave front. Either you’ve failed to understand my comments or you are deliberately twisting and misrepresenting my words. I clearly said that NOBODY survives a 2000 meter wave front and that includes Noah, too. That’s the problem here. A 2000 meter wavefront kills everybody and turns the ark into toothpicks. Noah dies, too. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t all the nomads with 2000 meter wave front and then let Noah survive.

      What I did say about floods was that water spreads out. That’s a fact. The depth and severity of a flood is not the same throughout a flood zone. That’s a fact. Survivorship varies within a flood zone. That’s a fact. Even the Black Sea flood would have includes regions within the flood zone where people could survive, because it’s not going be 2000 meter deep or even 100 meters deep at all points within the flood zone. So, there would be survivors in Noah’s flood. Get it? Now, stop misrepresenting what I said.

      Miracles:

      If the entire story of Noah is about miracles, then your post is not about science. It’s not about evidence, and it’s not about logic. It’s about blind faith. You appear to know nothing about science and about how science is done. Your use of the word “science” is fraudulent as is your self-proclaimed title of “Scientific Christian.”

      Look, no one has do science. You can do theology and go with blind faith and I wish you well. But if you’re going to use the word “science” then you have to play by the rules of science. And in science, you don’t get to shout “MIRACLE” when the data contradict your hypotheses. And yes, the data show that the OT is not completely factual.

      Like

      • “A handful of of Stone Age men with Stone Age tools could not build a boat that was larger than any other wooden boat ever built.””

        Try again, this was not the Stone Age.

        “If you doubt what I am saying, then get together with a couple of you buddies, grab some Stone Age tools, build an ark, and sail the open ocean for a few months. ”

        Again, Noah didn’t live in the Stone Age. Historical periods seem to thoroughly confuse you. I’m certain you have absolutely no clue whether or not the Iron Age or Bronze Age came first, whether or not the Persian period came after the Ramesside period, and if I let you guess you wouldn’t nail the Stone Age timeline by ten thousand years.

        “And giving them a year to do this doesn’t help”

        Giving them the help of God changes everything, though, which is the main difference between what Noah was able to do and what I could dream of.

        “If the entire story of Noah is about miracles, then your post is not about science. It’s not about evidence, and it’s not about logic. It’s about blind faith. You appear to know nothing about science and about how science is done. ”

        This is all coming from the guy who thought the Trojan War actually and that the Stone Age was still going 7,500 years ago, LOL.

        Science has, I repeat, confirmed the flood 7,500 years ago exactly as the Noah narrative portrays it. I repeat, science has confirmed the flood.

        “Has Wood ever accepted that he is wrong about his belief that the OT is infallibly and literally true? Would he ever accept data or evidence that disproves the hypothesis that the OT presents us with an infallible literal history? ”

        What so called “evidence” is this? Oh yeah, you have none! LOL. Asking someone to say that they would accept the Bible is wrong if evidence shows so, when no such evidence yet exists, is just atheistic farting on the worldview of literalists.

        Like

    • Iliad:

      So no one has found the “lost city” referred to in the Iliad as “Troy?” Really? Sigh. You see, it is truly pointless to continues any discussion of the Iliad.

      Wood:

      Has Wood ever accepted that he is wrong about his belief that the OT is infallibly and literally true? Would he ever accept data or evidence that disproves the hypothesis that the OT presents us with an infallible literal history? Would he ever accept a radiocarbon date for the destruction of Jericho of 1550 BC?

      No, no, and no. You know it, I know it.

      Explosive dishonesty:

      It appears that you continue to hold the position that I was explosively dishonest. You failed to understand the point I was making about Tut. Too bad. If you wish to continue holds the position that I was being dishonest, then I suppose that I will have to continue to hold my position about your resemblance to a certain alimentary sphincter.

      On with the show.

      I’m sorry, where did I refer to “thousands” C14 dates?

      And look at what you’ve done by quoting what one of the paper’s says about dating of King Dsojer’s reign. You’ve focused on the dating of events that occurred over one thousand years prior to the key date of 1400 BC! One thousands years earlier than the sack of Jericho!

      Yes, the error bars get bigger as you go farther back in time. Thus, citing the uncertainties associated the radiometric dating of Dsojer’s reign is irrelevant to a discussion of the error bars associated with dating events that occurred between 1400 and 1550 BC. If we’re talking about the sacking jericho, what we care about are the errors associted with dating event one thousand years after Dsojer’s.

      And what do we find when we look at radiocarbon dating of the period between, say, 1400 and 1700 BC? We find the adjustments and recalibrations and revisions do NOT include “offsets” of 150 years. Instead, the “adjustments” are usually in the range of a few decades. That’s it, we’re usually talking about a few decades. Not 150 years.

      To support the argument that the radiocarbon date for Jericho must be adjusted by 150 years, you need to show that at numerous sites in the eastern and southern Mediterranean, dating of short-lived plant material of an actual age of 1400 BC is repeatedly and consistently and systematically wrong by 150 years. Do you understand this point?

      Simply saying that dates are being “adjusted” is not enough. The magnitude of the adjustment is very important here. Size matters. You need evidence that the radiodating of material with an actual date 1400 BC must be adjusted by 150 years.

      However, when short-lived plant-based materials from the eastern and southern Mediterranean from the period of time in question are examined, there is no evidence of a systematic deviation or variance of 150 years between dates of event derived by archeology and dates derived from C14. This is clearly shown by the paper on the radiocarbon dating of the Egyptian dynasties. (You appear to have given me a link to the paper that I was already citing in my previous comments. That is, I’ve already read this paper.)

      What does this paper show? It shows that if you radiocarbon date materials from Egypt which are dated to around 1400 BC by non-radiocarbon means, then the radiocarbon dates generated will be far from 1550 BC. That is, if the material really and truly IS from 1400 BC, then you will NOT get a date of 1550 BC. You might get a C14 date of 1420 or 1430 BC, but you will not get a C14 date of 1550 BC.

      Materials with an actual age of 1400 BC do not produce a C14 date of 1550 BC. There is NO offfset of 150 years, and no reason to magically change a C14 date of 1550 BC to 1400 BC. This same pattern holds when you date material with archaeological dates of 1450 BC, 1500 BC, and 1550 BC. These materials do not generate radiocarbon dates of 1600 BC, 1650 BC and 1700 BC, respectively. Do you see? There is no 150 year offset.

      This is what your paper shows. This is your reference. There is no systematic 150 year offset, and Jericho was not sacked in 1400 BC. Yes, there’s a nail in the coffin, but it’s your coffin. It’s another own goal for you.

      Like

      • “Thus, citing the uncertainties associated the radiometric dating of Dsojer’s reign is irrelevant to a discussion of the error bars associated with dating events that occurred between 1400 and 1550 BC”

        CONFIRMED TROLL. My paper talks about two things: 1) The reign of Dsojer and 2) The New Kingdom start period (in the 1500’s BC). Why didn’t you even read through the full abstract before making such an obvious error? Why didn’t you read about the part of the New Kingdom that required calibrated radiometric dating? You go on to make a lot of assertions and never cite any of it. The paper I gave previously not only explains that calibrated radiometric dates are needed, but gives a SOLID explanation to explain the accepted offset acknowledged in the very abstract of the paper. Here is how the paper explains the C14 offset:

        “This offset most likely reflects
        the unusual growing season in premodern Egypt, which was concentrated during
        the winter months after the annual inundation. Plants in Egypt sampled the atmosphere at a different time of the year than the trees measured for the calibration curve, and we might expect a slight depletion because of the annual fluctuation in the atmospheric radiocarbon activity. The size of the effect agrees well with the estimated peak-to-peak amplitude of the seasonal fluctuations in radiocarbon activity in the atmosphere of up to 4 per mil (<32 14C yr) for the pre-industrial era, produced by variations in the rate of transport of 14C from the stratosphere to the troposphere "

        The paper CONCLUDES:

        "the
        harmonization of the historical chronologies of
        Egypt with the calibrated radiocarbon time scale
        removes a fault line between regions dated scientifically
        and those tied into historical sequences"

        RIP. All C14 dates in the paper where EXPLAINED to have been calibrated to link them to the historical chronologies.

        As for where Wood's paper on Jericho has been published — it was published to Biblical Archaeology Review and has a TON of citations (59). BAR is a respected journal and publishes nothing less than academic material — as far as I'm concerned, it's the most well known journal in archaeology. You confusingly say that Wood's paper needs to be published to a "secular" journal, somehow trying to rule out credible and mainstream biblical journals as well.

        Like

    • One last thought. Given the importance of Wood’s work on the dating of Jericho, I’m sure it must be published in a secular peer-reviewed scientific journal somewhere. Could you point me in the direction of that journal?

      Like

    • Black Sea Flood:

      I think that you’re missing the forest for the trees. Call the period of time 7500 years ago whatever you want. The question is did these men have metal tools with good cutting edges? Or we’re all of their tools made of stone and bone? Can you and you buddies take the tools and technology available at the time and build the biggest wooden boat in the history of the world? No.

      The Trojan War again? Still denying that there was conflict between the various groups living around the Aegean? Still denying that Troy has been found? Sigh. You exhibit the same behavior here as those who declare that Jesus was totally mythical. But again, the important thing here is that you’ve totally and utterly missed the point and/or have failed to respond to the point.

      You cannot dismiss evidence which disproves your hypotheses by appealing to miracles. That’s the point. Understand? I might make a few errors in these discussions, but I do not try to fix the problems by an appeal to miracles. Again, miracles are fine for blind faith, but it ain’t science. This is not how science is done. Your LOLing totally fails to address the problem, but I guess it makes you feel good.

      Science says there was a flood in the Black Sea basin about 7500 years ago. However, this flood doesn’t fit the OT narrative. It’s not Noah’s flood. I’ve tried to discuss this point with you, but you have ducked and hidden from any real testing of the hypothesis.

      In addition, you’ve insisted that the mortality rate was 100 percent throughout the flood zone which is clearly an untenable position. Science says otherwise. You’ve insisted that a 15 meter high ark could survive a 2000 meter wave front. Science says otherwise. You require miracles to build an ark, a position which is unscientific in the extreme. What science “confirms” is that no one could have built an ark 7500 years ago. Science DISPROVES your hypothesis.

      You can proclaim as you wish about science and the flood, but you cannot support your proclamation.

      Wood:

      No evidence that Wood is wrong? Again, you’re taking an extreme and unsupportable position. Obviously, there is evidence that Wood is wrong. Do you think that a large majority of archaeologist have concluded that Wood is wrong because … there’s no evidence that Wood is wrong? Knowledgeable archaeologists say that Wood is wrong … just for the hell of it?

      The radiometric dating says that Wood is wrong. This is evidence. You can dismiss this if you like, but it is evidence that Wood is wrong. There is also evidence that suggests that much of the conquest of Canaan narrative as a whole is wrong. So, yes, there is evidence.

      And then we have all of the other evidence that other parts of the OT are wrong. Fossil evidence about the order in which life appears on Earth, etc. There’s much, much, much more than just farting going on here, and I’d be glad to discuss this in depth. But clearly, like Wood, you are unable to accept what the evidence shows. Birds of a feather.

      Now as to Wood and his choice of journals, I assume that you understand the importance and significance of peer review? You understand that it’s not up to me or you to evaluate the strength of his claims, instead, it up to those who are experts in the field in question. Maybe Wood has a strong argument for his dating. But when he avoids peer review by secular archaeolgists by publishing in BAR, it makes me wonder just how strong his case really is. Why is he ducking peer review by those with other views?

      The dating of the sacking of Jericho is one of those things that would be of interest to many beyond the field of archaeology. It’s the type of research that is often published in Nature or Science. But of course, send his work to Nature or Science would expose it to intense scrutiny. Maybe he preferred to avoid this.

      Like

      • “I think that you’re missing the forest for the trees. Call the period of time 7500 years ago whatever you want. The question is did these men have metal tools with good cutting edges? Or we’re all of their tools made of stone and bone?”

        Considering literally every civilization to ever exist had components of woodworking in its history, I’m pretty sure Noah would have been able to use wood.

        “The Trojan War again? Still denying that there was conflict between the various groups living around the Aegean? ”

        #NotAnArgument Show me one figment of evidence of the Trojan War, as even partially depicted by the Iliad.

        “You exhibit the same behavior here as those who declare that Jesus was totally mythical.”

        I didn’t care too much when you called me an “asshole”, but that’s crossing borders.

        “I might make a few errors in these discussions, but I do not try to fix the problems by an appeal to miracles. ”

        If the supernatural wasn’t involved, Noah’s story wouldn’t have possibly happened. But the entire point is that Christians DO BELIEVE SUCH A SUPERNATURAL FORCE WAS INVOLVED AND THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE NARRATIVE.

        Supernatural — > God did it

        “In addition, you’ve insisted that the mortality rate was 100 percent throughout the flood zone which is clearly an untenable position. Science says otherwise. ”

        A guy who thinks that a 13.7 meter high ark that’s over 130 meters in length cannot take the impact of a 2km flood apparently thinks that a bunch of 1.7 meter tall nomads can!

        “Science DISPROVES your hypothesis.”

        Science PROOOOOVES that a nomad CAN’T survive a 2km flood! END!

        “Knowledgeable archaeologists say that Wood is wrong … just for the hell of it? ”

        It is the school of minimalism that keeps a number of archaeologists away from accepting the facts. Some accept them, though.

        “And then we have all of the other evidence that other parts of the OT are wrong. Fossil evidence about the order in which life appears on Earth, etc. ”

        LOL. Fossils are so rare before 300mil years ago that an appeal to them is basically a really bad argument from silence.

        “The dating of the sacking of Jericho is one of those things that would be of interest to many beyond the field of archaeology. It’s the type of research that is often published in Nature or Science.”

        LOLWHAT? Please show me one paper on the destruction of Jericho that was published to Nature/Science. If you haven’t gotten the memo, the dating of Jericho’s destruction is a topic in the field of ARCHAEOLOGY, and is thereby published into ARCHAEOLOGICAL journals. Nature and Science are not archaeological journals. Trying to publish the destruction of Jericho into Nature is like trying to publish a dinosaur fossil in the the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections or like trying to publish a mathematical paper into a sociological journal.

        Like

    • The main event:

      Confirmed troll? On what grounds is this statement based? You really good at assertions, not so good at backing them up. Yes, I read the Egyptian chronology paper. We are talking about the paper published in 2010, yes? Why am I a confirmed troll?

      Did YOU read the paper? The offset that you cite s being due to growing season effects is an offset of only 20 years. 20 years! This is very clearly horribly inadequate when the job at hand is to shift the radiocarbon dates for Jericho by 150 years. So, the C14 dates are off by 20 years. You’re still 130 years short of your goal.

      Yes, calibration is involved when work with C14 dating. But there is zero indication that this calibration in involved anyone saying .. .”Now we’ll add 150 years to every C14 date between 1400 BC and 1700 BC, because we all know that there is a 150 year offset.” This didn’t happen. So this paper is of little value for your case.

      Further, in some cases, I believe the “harmonization” you cited involved pining relative chronologies based on archaeology to absolute dates based on C14. Archaeolgy had provided a sequence of events, but not absolute calendar dates for the events. That step required C14 dating. In other words, it was the C14 dating which came to the rescue, and C14 was the basis for putting an actual date on a floating relative chronology.

      Let me explain what you need to do here. We have a C14 date for short-lived plant material from the destruction layer of Jericho of about 1550 BC. You need to establish (1) that this date is off by 150 years, and you need to establish (2) that any 150 year offset would specifically apply to material with actual absolute dates of 1400 BC (this is why citing the Dsojer’s dates is irrelevant). That is, you need to demonstrate that grain-bearing plants that were actually growing in 1400 BC will produce radiometric dates of 1550 BC. Do you understand these points?

      Now, there’s been a lot of talk of 150 year offsets which, very oddly, seem to cease to be a problem right around 1400 BC. For some odd reason, this 150 year offset doesn’t seem to be a problem after 1400 BC. And isn’t it interestin that the 150 year offset lasts just long enough to fix those Jericho dates? Or maybe there really is no 150 year offset affecting the C14 dates for Jericho at all.

      Here’s where the Egypt paper comes in. This paper includes the results of the dating of short-lived plant material from an region not far from Jericho, and it covers or brackets the dates around 1400 BC.

      And is there a 150 year offset in the C14 dates in the paper? Does anyone say that we must adjust C14 dates of 1550 BC by 150 years? Does anyone say that plant material with an actual date of 1400 BC will produce a C14 date of 1550 BC?

      No.

      There is nothing in this paper to suggest that the C14 dates for short-lived plant material with actual absolute dates of 1400 BC will need to be adjusted by adding 150 years to the dates generated by radiocarbon dating? There is nothing to suggest that plant material with actual dates of 1400 BC will produce C14 dates of 1550 BC. There’s no 150 year offset for C14 dates in this paper. Your paper contradicts your claims. RIP, indeed.

      Like

      • “Did YOU read the paper? The offset that you cite s being due to growing season effects is an offset of only 20 years. 20 years!”

        LOLWHAT? What part of CALIBRATED radiometric dating did you miss?

        “Yes, calibration is involved when work with C14 dating. But there is zero indication that this calibration in involved anyone saying .. .”Now we’ll add 150 years to every C14 date between 1400 BC and 1700 BC, because we all know that there is a 150 year offset.” This didn’t happen. ”

        Actually, the addition of 100-200 years is exactly what happens with calibrated radiometric dates, because the radiometric dates contradict the egyptian chronologies by 100+ years, and thus calibration fixes them by 100+ years.

        “And isn’t it interestin that the 150 year offset lasts just long enough to fix those Jericho dates? ”

        150 is the AVERAGE, not the rule. Funny enough, even scholars who disagree that the Israelite’s destroyed Jericho admit this offset, because they ALL admit it! Example:

        “For Jericho and other sites, EB III-EB IV transition, traditionally dated to time of Pepi I, is 200 years older than Egyptologists’ date for Pepi I.” – Regev

        Dates around Jericho’s time and those from the early bronze (EB) age are off by a MINIMUM of 100 years!

        “To state the blindingly obvious, woodworking does NOT, NOT, NOT equal the ability to make an ark.”

        I did not say woodworking means someone can make an ark, but it seemed to me that you hinted that woodworking somehow did not exist in the time of Noah and beforehand.

        Like

    • I will try to reply to your latest comment, but I think you’re getting a little unhinged here.

      To state the blindingly obvious, woodworking does NOT, NOT, NOT equal the ability to make an ark. Did I say that Noah couldn’t work wood? Straw man argument and gross distortion of my words here. I can only assume that you distort my words because you understand my point that Noah could not build what would literally have been the biggest boat ever made.

      Arguing about the Iliad is clearly pointless. I pointed to the evidence already.

      Yes, I understand that you believe that the Noah story involves one supernatural event after another. Hence … NOT SCIENCE. I can disprove your Black Sea hypothesis IF we stick to science. Which you will not do. That’s fine, but it makes you self-proclaimed title fraudulent.

      About the height of nomads and arks. I’ve lost count of the times that you’ve distorted and twisted and misrepresented my words with respect to this subject. I’ve tried repeatedly to correct your distortions. The fact that you persist tells me that you know that you case is a very weak one. Basically, distortion is the only way in which you can declare yourself the “winner.” Not very admirable for an alleged Christian.

      Minimalist. There are plenty of archaeologist out there who are not minimalists and who still disagree with Wood. Read William Dever. Not a minimalist. Wood has no excuse.

      Fossils are rare before 300 million years ago? Seriously? This is your argument? Seriously? This explains why the fossil record shows land-bound animals appearing millions and millions and millions of years before seed-bearing plants and flying vertebrates? Thanks for proving my point. Showing you contradictory evidence is pointless.

      And thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about what Nature and Science will and will not publish. These are both GENERAL SCIENCE journals. These journals do not specialize in any one area of science. They publish papers from all areas of science. Archaeology is a science, right?

      Like

      • “There are plenty of archaeologist out there who are not minimalists and who still disagree with Wood.”

        Good point. That’s fair to say. But, that doesn’t mean Wood is wrong.

        “Fossils are rare before 300 million years ago? Seriously? This is your argument? Seriously? This explains why the fossil record shows land-bound animals appearing millions and millions and millions of years before seed-bearing plants and flying vertebrates?”

        Dude, dates get pushed by by the hundreds of millions of years regularly. In 2016, the oldest life on Earth was found, at 3.7 billion years old. This was 220 million years older than the previously confirmed oldest life. At one point, the origins of multicellular life was pushed back by over half a billion years from about 800 billion ya to 1.56 billion ya! In one discovery!

        Not only that, but we must also consider potentially symbolic elements of Genesis.

        Like

    • Calibrated dates:

      What part of … where does it say in this paper that materials with an actual age of 1400 BC will produce C14 dates of 1550 BC … did you miss? Where in this paper did it say that C14 dates for materials with absolute dates of 1400 BC were calibrated by adding 150 years to C14 dates.?

      You’ve taken the word “calibrated” and decide to leap to the conclusion that it means something that is clearly not stated in this paper. You are adding assumptions and conclusions which are simply not there.

      As I’ve said, magnitude matters. It’s not enough to say the dates were “calibrated.” You need to demonstrate this the investigators doing this research added 150 years to the C14 dates. I see no evidence that they did so. All I see is a calibration of 20 years. That’s it. Show me where in this paper it says that 100 to 200 years were added to dates of around 1400 BC.

      Pepe I:

      Are talking about the Pepi I who ruled about 2300 BC? Surely you understand that any offsets which apply to dates around 2300 BC are irrelevant to the question of offsets at 1400 BC. I repeat, You need to demonstrate the there is a need for a 150 year offset for materials with absolute dates of 1400 BC. That’s the time frame that matters here.

      You know, when I brought up the dating for King Tut, a king who lived within 50 to 70 years of the 1400 BC, you said I was being “explosively dishonest.” Now you introduce issues surrounding th dating of a reign that happened 900 YEARS before the 1400 BC date. If it’s “dishonest” to talk about the Tut dates, what would you call it if someone started talking about Pepi dates?

      Noah:

      I didn’t not “hint” that there was no woodworking 7500 years ago. I simply questioned whether metal tools were available 7500 years ago. That’s it. Of course you can work wood with stone tools. But you can’t build an ark with stone tools. That’s the point.

      Like

      • “What part of … where does it say in this paper that materials with an actual age of 1400 BC will produce C14 dates of 1550 BC … did you miss? ”

        LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        My paper PROVES the pre-1400 BC offset and SHOWS that calibrated radiometric dates are needed for pre-1400 BC dates. The calibrations, as explained in the paper, is between 1-2 centuries. Obviously, this would average out to 150 years.

        “You’ve taken the word “calibrated” and decide to leap to the conclusion that it means something that is clearly not stated in this paper.”

        LOL! Semantics is NOT an argument! Try again, the word ‘calibrated’ means exactly what ‘calibrated’ means. You have run out of arguments and continue to deny this because you cannot stand the fact that archaeology has affirmed every biblical question it has taken up.

        “Are talking about the Pepi I who ruled about 2300 BC? Surely you understand that any offsets which apply to dates around 2300 BC are irrelevant to the question of offsets at 1400 BC. ”

        Dates between 1500 BC to 2300 BC were mentioned throughout the paper, and this DOES PROVE the existence of the offset. Furthermore, it’s called cherry picking when you ignore the 1500 BC calibrated radiometric dates and only consider the 2300 BC dates in order to escape my argument.

        ” I simply questioned whether metal tools were available 7500 years ago. That’s it. Of course you can work wood with stone tools. But you can’t build an ark with stone tools. That’s the point.”

        But as shown, woodworking DID exist 7500 years ago. Entire villages existed back then, with houses and everything (not like the houses of the modern world, of course, these are made of cement, something that only came along with the Romans).

        “It would much easier to decide if Wood is right or wrong if he would just submit his research to journals with genuine peer review.”

        Wood’s paper has been published in Biblical Archaeology Review, the most well known biblical journal in the world.

        “Regardless of what has happened with the dates for the earliest cells, I very seriously doubt is anyone is going to be pushing the date for the earliest amphibians back by 200 million years any time soon.”

        1. #NotAnArgument
        2. Where are amphibians mentioned in Genesis 1? “Every living creature that swarms and moves in the water” — these are fish, which in fact predate livestock as Genesis shows.

        Like

    • Wood:

      It would much easier to decide if Wood is right or wrong if he would just submit his research to journals with genuine peer review.

      Order of events in Genesis:

      Regardless of what has happened with the dates for the earliest cells, I very seriously doubt is anyone is going to be pushing the date for the earliest amphibians back by 200 million years any time soon. Determine the date for the earliest cells is quite a different matter from determining the dates for the earliest large, complex, multi-celled land-bound animals, flying animals and fruit-producing plants. Changes of the estimated date for the earlies cells might change by 200 million years with more research, not a surprise given the age of the deposits and the delicacy of cells, but I think that it’s very unlikely that this will happen with the earliest amphibians. So apples, oranges.

      In any event, what matters here is the order of event. Land-bound animals appear in the fossil record long before fruiting plants and long, long, long before birds. That is, no fruiting plant fossils or bird fossils have ever been found in layers which pre-date layers with the earliest land animals. Good thing as there are many plant species which require animals for pollination.

      While plant fossils may not be as common as, say, brachiopod fossils, there are still plenty of plant fossils out there. I’ve collected plant fossils from the mid-Carboniferous, and trust me, once you find a good locality and formation, you can haul these fossils out by the truckload. If God created hundreds of thousands of fruit-bearing plant species at a point in time before the creation of land-bound animals, we would have found fossils of these plants which pre-date the earliest land animal fossils.

      By the way, here’s a related question. How old is the moon?

      Like

    • How old is the moon?

      Radiocarbon dating and calibration:

      Ok, I think I figured out the source of your confusion, but I want to be certain. When you come up with an offset of 150 years, is this based on the sentence in the paper that says…”usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period.”? Is this how this paper “proves” your offset?

      If so, I think I can clear this up, but I want to be certain that this is the source of your claims. Once you confirm this, I’ll comment on it at length. But I don’t want to waste my time if I’ve misunderstood.

      (Were you cherry picking when you ignored the King Tut dates? )

      Woodworking:

      Surely you understand the difference between building a wooden hut and building the largest wooden boat ever constructed by humans, then or now.

      What archaeolgy does here is show us the technological capacity of humans living 7500 BC. What archaeolgy does, what science does, is disprove the flood narrative in the OT. Science says that Noah and his buddies could NOT have the ark described in the OT. It also disproves the statement of 100 percent within ALL points in the flood zone.

      If you wish to appeal to miracles, go right ahead. But now we are NOT talking anything related to archaeology, specifically, or science, in general. Archaeology does not “affirm” the Noah narrative, instead it conclusively disproves it. No one could build an ark 7500 years ago with the technology available at that time. It very unlikely that this could even be done today.

      Science disproves the Noah story. Only blind faith sustains it.

      BAR:

      Being a “well known” journal is obviously not the same thing as being a high quality journal. The National Enquirer is better known than Science.

      In the absence of genuine peer review, the material in BAR is of lesser value and quality than the material in peer-reviewed journals. Doesn’t automatically make the conclusions of its authors wrong, but it does make one wonder. Why not peer review?

      Amphibians:

      Once again, you appear to have missed my point. I’m using amphibians as an example of a very large taxonomic group composed of large, complex, multicelled organisms, that is, a group that’s not likely to totally evade detection in the fossil record for very long. I could have substituted reptiles, mammals, birds, angiosperms, etc., to make this point, so the absence of a specific reference to “amphibians” in Genesis is irrelevant.

      And again, here’s the point. You spoke of the possibility of dates for group origins being pushed back “200 million years.” But looking for fossils from the large groups listed above is not like looking for skid marks of slime. At this point in time, it seems very unlikely that then dates for major groups such as the ones listed above will be pushed back 200 million years. It not impossible; we still might find rabbits in the. Pre-Cambrian. But it’s very, very unlikely.

      And yes, this IS an argument.

      We’ve been collecting fossils for 250 years in localities located literally all over the globe and in formations covering billions of years. Thousands and thousands of collectors, millions or even billions of fossils of an incredible range of organisms ….and no apple trees in the Devonian. At a certain point in time, given the size of the organisms in question, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that we aren’t going to find, say, bird fossils which are older than the oldest land-bound animal fossils. It’s not unreasonable to conclude that major taxonomic groups are separated by very long periods of time and that the order of appearance given in Genesis is wrong. And this is all independently backed up by data on the rates of genetic change.

      Now don’t forget.. How old is the moon?

      Like

      • David — I must first explain why I deleted our conversation on the multicellular life post. After crushing your arguments, a few days ago, I deleted about 50-100 comments on all my posts. What I did was specifically delete some of the debates throughout my posts, because the debates themselves usually took up 10x the space of my actual post. I made sure not to delete any debates on my Exodus post, for I want as many comments as possible on that one.

        “Ok, I think I figured out the source of your confusion, but I want to be certain. When you come up with an offset of 150 years, is this based on the sentence in the paper that says…”usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period.”? Is this how this paper “proves” your offset? ”

        1. Yes, that does prove an offset as radiometric dates must be calibrated by 100-200 years, but…
        2. The specific date of 150 years comes from one of the papers I posted to you that you seemed to have completely ignored:
        https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/div-classtitleradiocarbon-and-the-date-of-the-thera-eruptiondiv/925806E13E9A690ABFD1613F14F507A6

        “(Were you cherry picking when you ignored the King Tut dates? )”

        As I explained a BILLLLIOOOON times, the papers say the offset happened before 1400 BC, not before 1300 BC. Get this through your thick skull.

        “Science says that Noah and his buddies could NOT have the ark described in the OT. It also disproves the statement of 100 percent within ALL points in the flood zone.”

        FALSE. Science is completely on my side and proves BEYOND A CONCEPTUAL DOUBT WITHOUT ANY QUESTION AT ALL that nomads cannot survive a 2km high flood. You are an obvious troll, you say that an ark the size of Noah’s ark is too small to survive the impact of a 2km high flood, but the nomads are fine! LOL. The 2km flood in question ANNIHILATED ALL CIVILIZATIONS IT HIT. End of question. Anyone who disagrees with a 100% morality rate is so biased it is beyond conception. Furthermore, science if anything, supports the thesis that Noah (with help from others and God) could have easily built the Ark. The God part decides all of this.

        “Surely you understand the difference between building a wooden hut and building the largest wooden boat ever constructed by humans, then or now. ”

        There have been many boats built bigger than Noah’s boat by us humans. Contrary to your thoughts, the ancients HAVE BUILT HUGE SHIPS.

        Athenaeus describes a boat built around 300 – 250 BC with the following dimensions: 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high, which is not much smaller than Noah’s Ark.

        The dimensions of Noah’s ship was 450 x 75 x 45, which compares with 850 x 92 x 64 for the Titanic. So the Titanic was bigger than Noah’s ship as well, and considerably bigger in its depth. So it is not as far fetched as you possibly think it is. Furthermore, watch this video to understand it is even less far fetched than you think it is:

        “Being a “well known” journal is obviously not the same thing as being a high quality journal. The National Enquirer is better known than Science. ”

        National Enquirer isn’t a journal, and BAR, although it is not a “world renowned journal”, IS a good journal and IS a respected peer-reviewed journal. You can’t get around this.

        “I’m using amphibians as an example of a very large taxonomic group composed of large, complex, multicelled organisms, that is, a group that’s not likely to totally evade detection in the fossil record for very long.”

        On what basis is this conclusion made? It’s hard to believe that remains of a frog could survive for 400,000,000 years. We simply can’t know. And amphibians still aren’t mentioned outright in Genesis.

        “We’ve been collecting fossils for 250 years in localities located literally all over the globe and in formations covering billions of years. ”

        And every few years we make fossil finds that completely change the paradigm of biology. You stand corrected.

        “Now don’t forget.. How old is the moon?”

        No clue, but pretty old.

        Like

    • I’lm going to break my reply into two parts, non-radiometric issue and radiometric issues.

      Non-radiometric first.

      Ok, so you deleted comments when the string of comments was much longer than the post. Right.

      So, I can expect that all of the comments on this post will also disappear as this comment string is much longer than the post. So, this is officially pointless and a waste of my time, but as I have a little time to waste today, so what the hell, here’s goes pointlessness.

      Survival rates:

      First, the minute you say…”with help from God”…then we are no longer doing science. You cannot claim that science supports the thesis if you have to shout…MIRACLE! The very fact that you have to insert miracles into the equation proves that you KNOW that science DISPROVES the flood story, because in the absence of miracles, what science says is that the story cannot be true. Science disproves, blind faith sustains.

      Second, science can absolutely and clearly show beyond a conceptual doubt and without any question at all that 15 meter high boat cannot survive the impact of a 2 km high flood wall. Period. Noah is killed, boat is turned into matchsticks. End of story. Legend disproved right there. No real need for any more disproof, however…

      Third,, for the thousandth time, I NEVER said that nomads survive a 2 km wave front. Never. I never said that the mortality rate would be less than 100 percent at the 2 km wavefront, in fact, me repeated point was that evertyone is killed, INCLUDING Noah.

      I do not understand why you insist on repeated distorting what about what I said about nomads and 2 km floods. Are you genuinely unable to understand a simple argument? Why do you distort my words and misrepresent what I’ve said? Could it be bias beyond conception?

      What I did say, and what you have failed to respond to, is that flood waters spread out. Do you deny that flood waters spread out? What I said was that water depth and flood intensity will vary within a flood zone. Do you deny this? Given that depth and intensity varies, there will be regions within the flood zone where survival is quite possible. This isn’t bias beyond conception, this is just a blindingly obvious conclusion.

      Ark size:

      Athenaeus. There is zero evidence that the ship described by Athenaeus ever existed. Now, if we’re going to reject the fantastic claims of ancient writers when there is zero archaeological evidence to support the claims, then we have to be consistent, right? Show me evidence that ancient ships as big as those described by Athenaeus ever existed.

      But let’s pretend that Athenaeus was correct. We’re talking about. 5500 years after the ark, right? Far different and far, far more advanced tools and technologies. Totally irrelevant to the question of what Noah could do with stone and bone tools and without thousands of years of accumulated boat-building knowledge.

      And the Titanic? Are you kidding me? The Titantic was a METAL boat built by thousands of workers over several years using the latest 20th century technology. Now we’re talking apples and elephants.

      Your video was cute, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not Noah could have built the ark. It’s arguments are badly flawed, but I’m not sure I want to go off on another tangent here and try to respond to the whole things, especially in light of the likely fate of my comments. If you insist, I could expand on the flaws later.

      But I will say that it seems that the makers of the video believe that the flood was a global one, and I would how they would answer the question…how did the kangeroo “kind” get to Turkey, and how did it get back to Australia after the flood?

      BAR:

      Articles are not peer reviewed by a full and complete cross-section of others working in the same field as Wood. You are smart enough to know that this is not true peer review. End of story.

      Amphibians and the like:

      If fish fossils can survive for 500 million years (and they do), then amphibian fossils can survive for 400 million years (and they do). Yes, you can keep hoping to find rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian if you’d like (see Haldane), but I’m not going to hold my breath.

      I don’t understand your obsession with amphibians and the Bible. Point is, land-bound animals (mentioned in the Bible) appeared long before fruiting plants (mentioned in the Bible) and long, long before birds (mentioned in the Bible).

      Moon:

      Don’t know how old the moon is? Google it. Notice that it’s a tad older than the oldest plants of any type. See the problem?

      Like

      • “Ok, so you deleted comments when the string of comments was much longer than the post. Right.
        So, I can expect that all of the comments on this post will also disappear as this comment string is much longer than the post. So, this is officially pointless and a waste of my time, but as I have a little time to waste today, so what the hell, here’s goes pointlessness.”

        LOL. The point of this conversation is not to convince comment onlookers (hardly anyone would read through such a long crossover anyways), but to convince one another.

        “First, the minute you say…”with help from God”…then we are no longer doing science.”

        No one said that a single man all on his own in the Stone Age was building such a ship in the first place. The evidence I brought to you, such as the construction of a ship in the third century BC just a little smaller than Noah’s Ark, the fact that the Titanic was considerably bigger, and that video I sent, were to show you that its not nearly as un-feasable as you think — a human(s) is definitely capable of doing what the Bible says happened, and if God blessed Noah greatly on his initiative, then it is even more possible.

        “Second, science can absolutely and clearly show beyond a conceptual doubt and without any question at all that 15 meter high boat cannot survive the impact of a 2 km high flood wall. ”

        >science shows a 15m high boat cannot take impact of 2km flood
        >science shows 1.5m nomad CAN take impact of 2km flood

        Pick one. You can’t have both.

        You go on to say that you took back your claim on the nomads somehow being able to survive, and now admit that the morality rate will be 100% — finally, you dispose of your contradiction. A 15m high boat CAN take a 2km flood, assuming the flood is not instantly with a shore of 2km, rather much less, and as the water builds up, it increases eventually to 2km.

        Again, there’s nothing problematic with Noah’s ark.

        “Athenaeus. There is zero evidence that the ship described by Athenaeus ever existed. ”

        We have a reliable literary source. 95% of our history comes from literary sources. If you can’t accept the historical docuementation of the past from Arthaneus, you’re going to have to throw out EVERYTHING — and such is not only a failure to accommodate for critical thinking, it is an ABORTION of critical thinking. There is NO reason to think the described boat didn’t exist. End of discussion. What “evidence” exactly are you looking for? No amount of scientifically possibly surviving evidence is possible, as boats do not late 2,250 years. Therefore, we have all the evidence we can of such a boat, and that’s not the only boat described of ancient times with such size. You go on to say:

        “Show me evidence that ancient ships as big as those described by Athenaeus ever existed.”

        As explained above, it is scientifically impossible for a boat to last 2,250 years, and if we had any tiny remains of it, we would have no idea it would part of such a grand construction. The evidence says what the evidence says.

        You go on to point out there is a 5,500 year difference between Athenaeus and Noah. However, I have undoubtedly shown that not only were ancients in fact capable of such projects, but take a look at the facts: Pyramids were being constructed over 20,000 years ago. Not too long ago, the dating of the sphinx was moved from 2500 BC to 7000 freaking BC — which is 9000 years ago — if the sphinx was built more than a thousand years before Noah, and similar ships to Noah’s were being built in the Persian period (documented by Athenaeus), then your claim that it is “impossible” seriously lacks support.

        ” I’m not going to re-type comments that I already made, but the short answer is that this link and paper have little bearing on the accuracy of the Jericho dating.”

        Manfred’s paper not only concerns Thera, but it concerns the entire offset — Manfred clearly speaks of the exact 150 year offset before 1400 BC. Therefore, the matter is closed.

        You go on to give one of the stupidest explanations I have ever heard of what the paper meant — you say that the paper magically claims that 95% probability datings must be pushed back by 100-200 years, not all dates in the offset time period — this shows you know just about zit regarding anything to do with radiometric datings and do not even understand the probability figures it gives! Of course, the probability figures have nothing to do with any offset, and you’ll fail to ever find that in any paper without either 1) completely misrepresenting it or 2) completely failing to understand it (what you did). You cannot “calibrate” a probability figure. That’s the key word, calibrate — the paper explains the radiometric dates are calibrated by 100-200 years.

        Like

    • Radiometric dating time.

      Thera paper:

      I did not ignore this link. If you would review earlier comments, you will see where I specifically responded to the issues of dating and the Thera eruption. I’m not going to re-type comments that I already made, but the short answer is that this link and paper have little bearing on the accuracy of the Jericho dating.

      Now as to your somewhat premature LOL victory dance…

      It took me a little while to figure out where you went wrong, because you’ve misunderstood the Egypt paper, and initially, I couldn’t figure what you were talking about. However, I now have confirmation that I’ve found the point of confusion.

      In short, you’ve confused or conflated the word “range” with the word “offset.” When Ramsey, et al., use the word “range” in the second paragraph of the paper, they do not mean “offset.” They are not saying that there is an offset of 100 to 200 years. They are not saying that every radiocarbon date from “this period” is wrong or off by 100 to 200 years. They are not saying that every date must be adjusted by adding 100 to 200 years. You have misunderstood what they are saying.

      Here’s what the “100 to 200 years” is referring to. It’s referring to a range of dates on either side of a given C14 dates within which the actual dates almost certainly lies with a probability of 95 percent. See the phrase “95 percent probability range”? That’s the clue or context that tells you what this is all about.

      Here’s an example. Let’s say I run a sample and I get a C14 date of 2050 BC. If the 95 percent probability range Is 200 years, then I conclude that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual dates lies between 2150 and 1950 BC. That is, my date is 2050 BC plus or minus 100 years.

      Notice that I am NOT adding 200 years to 2050 BC to get an actual dates of 1850 BC. A range of 200 years is not an offset of 200 years.

      Also notice that the actual date could be older as well as younger than the C14 date, one does not just automatically add 100 years to the C14 date to get an “actual date” of 1950 BC. The actual date could, in fact, be 2100 BC.

      This is what Ramsey is talking about when using the word “range,” or later in the paper, “precision.” We are NOT talking about offsets here.

      So, let’s imagine that the Jericho destruction dates have the the maximum range given in this paper. In that case, there would be a 95 percent probability that the actual Jericho destruction dates would fall somewhere between 1650 and 1450 BC. But you need a date of 1400 BC, so sorry, still no cigar.

      Further, the evidence from the actual 1995 paper (which I’ve read) which reported the Jericho dates states that the range in this particular case is considerably less than 200 years, taking us even farther away from 1400 BC. You see, what matters here is not the average range for dates from 1400 to 2500 BC. What matters here is the actual range in the specific case of dating material from Jericho from 1550 BC. And in the specific case, there is no evidence that the range of these dates will get you to 1400 BC.

      As in the case of the Thorton paper, you failed to understand the science. So much for “crushing” me.

      Now as to calibration…

      Yes, all C14 dates are calibrated, usually by dendrochronology. So, you run the radiocarbon assay, get the raw data, apply the calibration, and report the calibrated dates. In the case of the Egypt paper, Ramsey, et al., took material from around 1400 BC, got the raw data, applied Catherine appropriate calibrations, and got calibrated dates of around 1400 BC. They were not dead on 1400 BC, but they were pretty close. Ramsey reports an average range of 25 years for New Kingdom material, and notice that NO additional offset is applied to the C14 dates.

      Here’s the important part. The Jericho dates in the 1995 paper were derived in the same way. Take material from the destruction layer, run the assay, get the raw data, apply calibration and report calibrated dates of … 1550 BC. NOT 1400 BC. And as with the Egypt dates, no additional offset is needed or justified. All of the offsetting and calibrating is already baked into the reported calibrated dates. IF the actual dates for this material were around 1400 BC, then the calibrated dates should be around 1400 BC, just as was true for the Egypt paper. No justification for adding 150 years here.

      See how this works?

      Like

    • Sorry, the auto correct inserted the word “Catherine” in one of the above sentences. Phrase should read “applied the appropriate calibration”

      Like

    • Size of the ark:

      If you are acknowledging that you never said that a Stone Age man with Stone Age technology could build a boat of the size of Noah’s ark on his own, then we’re done here.

      So you didn’t say that a Stone Age man was capable of building an ark on his own? That’s because it’s impossible. You didn’t say this, because you know that it can’t be done without appealing to miracles. You did say that this took miracles, yes? And when you have to appeal to miracles, that means that you know that science has disproved the hypothesis that Noah built the ark. You KNOW it’s not at all “feasible,” because IF it was feasible, you would NOT have to appeal to miracles. But you DID appeal to miracles.

      You know that science says it did not happen.

      And your video is a joke. How did the kangaroo kind get to Turkey? And you could you please define “kind” for me? And that’s just for starters.

      Mortality rates:

      What the hell is your problem here? You know that I never said nomads would survive at a point where a wave was 2 km high. Never. Never. And yet you keep repeating this as if I said it. And you accuse me of dishonesty?

      So, now Noah’s boat is going to survive because, it’s going to be gently lifted on a slowly rising sea to a height of 2000 meter? Come on, seriously? Now who can’t pick? Now who wants to have it both ways?

      You also failed to respond to my point that there would be points within the flood zone were the severity would be much less and survival would be more than possible.

      And where exactly did you ge the idea that there was a wave that was 2 km high? What is you reference for this? How do you get a 2 km high wave here?

      Athenaeus:

      Your comment is classic straw man and reductio ad absurdum all rolled into one. Nicely done. It also ignores that fact that you reject 100 percent of the Iliad. So now you are a defender of ancient literary sources? This is new.

      It’s quite possible to question one specific claim made in an ancient text without automatically needing to question or discard everything else in any ancient text. This should be blindingly obvious to the man who rejects the Iliad.

      The problem with Athenaeus’ boat is that his claim is an extraordinary one. It is extraordinarily difficult to build a wooden boat of the size given by Athenaeus (or the OT) because of the enormous stresses on a frame of this size. Such a boat would leak like a seize, and even at the peak of wooden boat technology in the 1800s, no one ever built such a boat, let alone, thousands of years ago. If you doubt this, go build an ark.

      In addition, boats from this time period have survived and have been found and have been recovered from the sea. This is scientifically possible. That’s a fact. So we do have a some idea of what was being built at this time and about the technology available to the Romans.

      So you need to take a deep breath and stop talking about “abortions.” You’re embarrassing yourself.

      Further, and again, to be blindly obvious, what the Romans could do 2000 years ago and what the Brits could do 100 years ago is completely irrevelant to what a nomad could do the stone tools 7500 years ago. Even the Roman technology, let alone the British technology, is several orders of magnitude greater than what was available 7500 years ago. Do you also think that Noah could have built a Saturn V rocket and gone to the moon?

      Pyramids? How many men were required to build the pyramids? How long did it take? Were the Egyptians nomads? Were the first pyramids the Great Pyramids, or did the Egyptians start with much simpler designs? Apples and elephants again.

      And where did you get a date of 20,000 years ago for the pyramids? Dating of the sphinx? References?

      And did you figure out the problem with the age of the moon?

      Stay tuned for radiocarbon.

      Like

      • “If you are acknowledging that you never said that a Stone Age man with Stone Age technology could build a boat of the size of Noah’s ark on his own, then we’re done here.”

        I rather said NOT JUST ANY stone age man… Noah had God backing him up and a century to get the job done. No problems here, and in ancient times boats almost as big as Noah’s were built, and Noah’s boat was definitely considerably smaller than the Titanic, which isn’t even the biggest boat.

        “And when you have to appeal to miracles, that means that you know that science has disproved the hypothesis that Noah built the ark.”

        This is pure nonsense that is hard to take seriously LOOOOOL. Science CAN’T DISPROVE a miracle, you darned troll.

        “What the hell is your problem here? You know that I never said nomads would survive at a point where a wave was 2 km high. Never. ”

        BULL SHITE. You kept on saying that science “PROVES” that the mortality rate in even Noah’s flood wouldn’t be 100% — you kept claiming this until your last response. It seems that what you call science is simply “whatever concludes that I’m right” LOL! IN reality, only my position is scientific.

        “So, now Noah’s boat is going to survive because, it’s going to be gently lifted on a slowly rising sea to a height of 2000 meter? ”

        GENTLY? I never said it would be gentle, it would be rather abrupt but I severely doubt that the flood would immediately topple over the ark, it would come let’s say, perhaps 10 meters in, the ark would start floating, and then the increasing amount of water would very quickly make the ark rise.

        “Athenaeus:
        Your comment is classic straw man and reductio ad absurdum all rolled into one. Nicely done. It also ignores that fact that you reject 100 percent of the Iliad. So now you are a defender of ancient literary sources? This is new. ”

        LOL. Athenaeus was a writer of history. The Iliad is a collection of fables. BIG DIFFERENCE. You have a hard time with ancient history — to you, you can’t even conceive that some ancients wrote histories whereas other’s wrote simple stories without any historical nature.

        Iliad — > collection of stories that usually have no historical support
        Athenaeus — > historical writer
        Bible — > historical narrative with billions of confirmed facts

        –By the way, I was wrong about the sphinx date

        “I read the Manfred paper. Where in this paper does Manfred say that there is a consistent 150 year offset which applies to all sites and all dates around the period of interest throughout the eastern Mediterranean?”

        LOL! You wont find any phrases saying “”ALLL DATES IN ALL LOCATIONS ARE OFF BY APX. 150 YEARS”, but the paper specifically states that these radiometric dates in the offset are in fact off by 150 years on average before 1400 BC

        “rations and offsets. You were the one who tried to find a connection between “probability figures” and offsets. ”

        WHAT an Earth kind of a marijuana are you on? YOU’RE the one who mentioned the probability figures, that have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the calibration discussed in the paper. You’re making false connections, trying to replace an offset with probability figures.

        You go on to ask me about the moon being billions of years old — err, what? Who cares? What does it change? Why should I care about the age of the moon?

        Like

    • Thera:

      I read the Manfred paper. Where in this paper does Manfred say that there is a consistent 150 year offset which applies to all sites and all dates around the period of interest throughout the eastern Mediterranean? What sentence or sentences are the basis for your conclusion? Be specific.

      I understand that there is an issue with the specific case of the Tell El-Daba site, but this case still does not involve a 150 year offset, and the Bronk Ramsey paper shows that C14 dating works pretty well in the eastern Med during the period we’re interested in. Other research suggests that the issues at Tell El-Dana may be unique to this site and to this excavation.

      This matter is only closed in your mind.

      Bronk Ramsey paper:

      Your comments here are rather muddled.. Honestly, I can barely follow what you are talking about, but I’ll do my best.

      To review, you said that this paper, the Bronk Ramsey paper on the chronologies in Egypt, proved the pre-1400 offset and shows that the “calibration” is between one and two centuries. Yes?

      I asked if you were basing this conclusion on the sentence about the 100 to 200 year ranges, and you said that, yes, that proved that an offset of 100 to 200 years must be calibrated.

      But this is wrong. The statement in the paper about ranges is not about “calibrations” or offsets at all. The statement about ranges provides zero support for your position that there has to be a 150 year offset applied to things like the dating at Jericho. It does not prove that an offset of 150 years must be “calibrated” and it does not prove a pre-1400 offset of 150 years exists.

      The statement which attempted to connect ranges to offsets was your statement. You were the one trying to link ranges and calibrations and offsets. You were the one who tried to find a connection between “probability figures” and offsets. I was responding to your words when I tried to explain what ranges referred to.

      How, specifically, was my explanation about ranges incorrect? Don’t just insult, be specific about the problem. (By the way, I can tell you are a Christian by your insults. Nice witness.)

      Where and how did I say that 95 percent probability datings must be pushed back by 100-200 years? I don’t even know what this means. Your comment about this makes no sense. I think that, yet again, you may have completely misunderstood me. You know, before you call an explanation “stupid,” maybe you should try to understand what it is saying.

      Is there something else in this paper that shows what you claim about offsets? If so, could you please point out the relevant sentences? How and where does the paper explain that the radiocarbon dates are “calibrated” by 100 to 200 years? Where does it state that there is a 150 offset? Be specific, and remember, this is what you’re claiming that it does.

      I know what calibration means. Do you?

      Like

    • Size of Noah’s boat:

      Not much more I can say here. Your “ancient times” when you claim boats almost as big as Noah’s were built occurred 5500 years after your date for Noah, but you seem to be in total denial as to the significance of this (although I’m glad you now understand that there weren’t any pyramids 20,000 years ago). You could give Stone Age Noah with his bone and stone tools and his Stone Age boat building technology a thousand years, and you still don’t get a wooden boat bigger than any boat that’s ever been documented by actual physical evidence.

      Your claim that a Stone Age man could build a boat like the ark would be considered totally and utterly absurd by anyone without blind faith. But given your blindness, there is nothing more that I can do here. Believe as you wish.

      Science and Noah:

      You missed my point.

      You claimed that science confirms the ark fable. This is what I’m responding to when I say that science disproves the ark legend. You brought science into the equation, and you wish to put the imprimatur of science on the ark legend. But what science confirms here is that the Noah story is very clearly and completely and totally NOT feasible. That’s what you conclude IF you want to talk about SCIENCE. This is the conclusion if you stick to science.

      Now, as I’ve said, if you wish to introduce miracles, be my guest. It’s an admission that the Noah story is NOT, scientifically speaking, feasible, but go ahead and call on miracles if you’d like. The Noah story is certainly theologically and supernaturally feasible. But once you introduce miracles, you forfeit the ability to say that science confirms the myth.

      And what’s with calling me a troll? I disagree with you. Is anyone who disagrees with you a troll? More Christian love, I guess.

      Mortality rates:

      Yes, I said that mortality rates would be less than 100 percent…at some point in the flood zone. I never said that this applied right at the 2 km wavefront. Is this really that hard for you to follow? Do you get it now? There’s no bullshit here, just a failure on you part to follow a simple argument.

      You say I’m wrong about mortality rates, but you can’t explain why I’m wrong. If you think that this is just something that I concluded so I could be right, then support this statement with something more than LOL. (And honestly, what’s with all the LOLs? How old are you? 15?)

      And again, where did you get the value of 2000 meters for the height of the wave front? References?

      Rising arks:

      Now the water comes in at 10 meters instead of 2000 meters? Ahhhh.

      Yeah, you get it now. Your 2000 meter wavefront would destroy the ark. So now the water initially comes in at 10 meters. Very convenient turn of events. Bye bye, 2000 meter wavefront.

      It actually doesn’t matter how fast the water rises. The stresses on the boat once it’s a float are going to turn the ark into a colander.

      Athenaeus:

      I’m sure that Athenaeus was a better historian than the creators of the Iliad, but that hardly makes him infallible when it comes to extraordinary claims.

      The Bible has billions of confirmed facts? You’re so cute when channel Donald Trump.

      Radiocarbon dating:

      I’ve asked for specific statesments from the Bronk Ramsey and Bietak to back up your numerous claims about what these papers say. In particular, I’d like for you to show me where and how Bronk Ramsey, et al., “prove” or say that there is a need to apply a 150 year offset to calibrated radiocarbon dates. BE SPECIFIC. Given me the specific sentences.

      You keep telling me what these papers say, but you repeatedly seem unable to show or demonstrate how and where the papers do as you say they do.

      Yes, I mentioned probabilities because THIS is what the ranges of 100 to 200 years are about. The ranges are NOT about offsets as you have claimed. You said that the statement that proved that there was a need for offsets was the statement about ranges and probabilities. But offsets and ranges are two different things. See the point now?

      The Moon:

      Genesis says that plants were created before the moon. Science says otherwise. Understand now?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s