Biblical Flood? Fish, squid, and shrimp fossils in the mountains of Lebanon and Peru

[Mojo]

I don't blame you for not seeing it because Mojo made the explanation so small when he changed my post to say this:

The bible talks of a {Completely impossible}* worldwide flood...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9205494#post9205494

I think this kind of stuff hurts the image of some skeptics.

I did exactly what you did to the quotation from Gawdzilla in this post, apart from the fact that you included no explanation.

Let's look at what we both did, and check them off:

DOC | Mojo
Added text that changed the meaning of the quotation|Added text that changed the meaning of the quotation
Placed added text in curly brackets|Placed added text in curly brackets
Started added text with an unnecessary capital C|Started added text with an unnecessary capital C
Added an unnecessary ellipsis at the end of the quoted sentence|Added an unnecessary ellipsis at the end of the quoted sentence
Continued post by addressing the quotation as it was after it had been edited|Continued post by addressing the quotation as it was after it had been edited

The only difference is that I did it in order to make a point about your argument (as anyone can see by looking at the context of my post), while you did it in so that you could further your argument by attacking a strawman.

Whose image do you think this harms?

And by the way, here you are once again attacking the same strawman that you edited into Gawdzilla's post, by spamming the very same text that you used the first time, two posts and 22 minutes after you complained about me doing this.

Carbon dating is not relevant here.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We can't date things that are too old. After about 10 half lifes, there is very little C-14 left to measure."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

Fossils aren't carbon dated.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Here it is:

From Wiki

The "standard" Akkadian version, consisting of twelve tablets,was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC, and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Moses was estimated to live around 1400 b.c.

Firstly, that link doesn't say that Sin-liqe-unninni 'edited' the Epic of Gilgamesh at all, it says that he 'compiled' it from 'earlier material', which is a different thing altogether.

From your link;
"The standard version was discovered by Austen Henry Layard in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh in 1849. It was written in standard Babylonian, a dialect of Akkadian that was used for literary purposes. This version was compiled by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC from earlier material."

In other words, it was put together in the exact same fashion as the Christian Bible, which was 'compiled' from a mixture of Old Testament Books and New Testament scripture and finalised as 'biblical canon' by the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. Are you suggesting that because the Bible was 'compiled' from earlier works that it somehow makes those earlier works worthless? Because if that's what you're claiming for the Epic of Gilgamesh, then obviously the same must count for the Christian Bible too.

Secondly, even if the estimation of when Moses lived were true, and if the tradition of him writing the Book of Genesis is correct, (and remember, current scholarly thinking is that the Book of Genesis was written around 500 BC, meaning that Moses couldn't have written it) that still doesn't predate the earlier 18th century BC 'Epic of Atra Hasis' that the flood accounts in both the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Book of Genesis are obviously based upon.

 

[Mojo]

I don't blame you for not seeing it because Mojo made the explanation so small when he changed my post to say this:

The bible talks of a {Completely impossible}* worldwide flood...

Do you think there is a problem with the way I changed your post?

 

[abaddon]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

That is a risible statement.
Anyone reading this thread will reach other conclusions which you will not like much. You wantonly altered someone's post to give it a different meaning. You then argued against this strawman you created. You proposed a local flood as a possibility for the biblical account then denied you did (was that a cock crowing I heard?)

I'm just putting info out there like this:

Carbon dating can only be used on materials that are less than about 50,000 years old, so it can't be used on fossils.
The ages of fossils are generally constrained by radiometric dating of suitable rocks (i.e. igneous or metamorphic) in proximity to their containing strata within the lithological sequence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_the_ages_of_fossils_determined

And here you go again, repeating the same lie. The only reason for you addressing carbon dating is because you dishonestly altered another's post to introduce carbon dating. Nobody mentioned carbon dating at all, until you dishonestly introduced the topic by altering someone else's post to make it read differently than intended. I suspect you did this because you thought you could score points against carbon dating, but since nobody was talking about it at all, you, in desperation to inject the topic, resorted to the dishonest tactic of altering the posts of others.

But remember these fossils in Lebanon are in great shape and many like octopus are fully formed which is rare. This leads to the conclusion that the marine life was quickly covered while the marine life was alive.

Which leaves you admitting that the surrounding rock is 85 million years old, disproving the biblical account of genesis.

 

[joobz]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

Actually, your links helped show that the flood story is fiction. By admitting it was likely only a local flood is to admit that the Noah story never happened.

If a fisherman tells you a tale about how he almost caught a whale, and you find out it was only a tuna, does that validate his story?

To summarize this thread, you have helped demonstrate that the bible is a mixture of depravity and tall tales.

 

[Resume]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

Anyone who thinks there was a biblical type flood after reading this thread, please weigh in.

 

[John Jones]

Anyone who thinks there was a biblical type flood after reading this thread, please weigh in.

Not I. In fact, flood believers have lost credibility because of this thread.

 

[X]

Well this makes about the 15th time (since I've been on this system) someone assumed the worse, and falsely accused me of something . Actually the reason I put {Carbon} dating in there was because I knew a derailing series of joke attempts would ensue if it just said dating.

OK, let me try.

The bible talks of a {Completely impossible}* worldwide flood...

You see, even your OP admits that the Biblical flood could never have happened.




*Words added to avoid the derailing series of joke attemps that would ensue if it just said worldwide flood. So that's OK then.

I don't blame you for not seeing it because Mojo made the explanation so small when he changed my post to say this:

The bible talks of a {Completely impossible}* worldwide flood...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9205494#post9205494

I think this kind of stuff hurts the image of some skeptics.

Do you really not understand that Mojo was giving an example of why your addition of "carbon" to a post about dating methods, and subsequent attacks of only carbon dating was dishonest?

I don't know how old the marine life is, the material that surrounds the marine life is more than likely older than the marine life it surrounds.

Also with regard to marine life: From the article: Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

"Are there things that can't be carbon dated?

The method doesn't work on things that didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures since their carbon might originate from dissolved carbonate rocks limestone. This in turn causes problems in dating animals that eat sea food.

We can't date things that are too old. After about 10 half lifes, there is very little C-14 left to measure."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

No, I guess not. Because a few minutes later you do it again.
Carbon-14 dating is NOT THE ONLY METHOD of dating! And although it seems novel to you, the rest of us are all well aware that it wouldn't be used for fossils millions of years old. There are other, more appropriate dating methods available.
Your continued assault on carbon-14 dating, after you (and no one else) inserted it into another person's post to change the intent of their post, is dishonest.

That is what Mojo was demonstrating by doing to your post exactly what you did to someone else's.



Now, about the detailed explanation of what you believe regarding the flood...?

 

[Evolved Wookie]

I've been trying hard to think of a way to highlight the significance of Polar Bears and Penguins never having become mortal enemies and in doing so I've been searching the webz for a picture of the two species sharing a beer and reminiscing about their ancestors' time on Noah's Floating Zoo™ but, as odd as it seems, I can't find any.

I'm sure DOC will have a humourous answer for us.

I hope I'm not too late.

My humble sacrifice to the Pharaoh.

...I can spruce it up a bit if you actually genuinely want to use it elsewhere...

ETA: Sorry for the delay - I've been away and only just got to page 11!

 

[tsig]

Where did you get 1700 years?



From the article "Two Evidences for Noah's Flood: Fossil Graveyards and Extrabiblical Accounts" by Charlie H. Campbell

"With so many points in common between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical account, it’s not difficult to conclude that both accounts recall a common event. But some critics of the Bible look at the similarities in the accounts and argue that Moses must have stolen his idea for a flood from an earlier source. They have no evidence that this occurred except the similarities in the accounts. But similarities in different reports of historical events don’t prove plagiarism. It is very possible that witnesses with similar details in their stories are looking back to an actual event–in this case the Flood. The more witnesses who tell a similar story, the more likely the core of the story is actually true. But other critics of the Bible aren’t concerned with the similarities in the accounts. They are concerned about the differences between the accounts. And there are differences {such as the boatbuilder's name}:
<snip>
These differences aren’t surprising. As Noah’s descendants spread out from the mountains of Ararat (c. 2400–2300 BC) to the four corners of the planet [7] and the story was told and retold over the centuries, conflicting details crept into different strains of the story."

http://1peter315.blogspot.com/2011/06/archaeological-evidence-for-flood.html

Let's see, we can tell the flood story is true because they all tell the same story and we can tell the flood story is true because they all tell a different story.

I believe you used the same argument to prove the NT stories.

 

[smartcooky]

Remember, the person who is traditionaly considered to have started Abrahamic religion, 'Abraham', was supposedly himself a Mesopotamian who moved to Canaan, a place where they worshipped a pantheon of gods led by a chief god called 'El' who's wife or consort was a mother goddess called 'Asherah'. Even the Bible says that God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as 'El' (Exodus 6.2–3) and we can also associate the Cannanite god 'El' to the Israelite god 'Yahweh' via both of them being associated with the Canaanite mother goddess 'Asherah' because of the archeological discovery of an 8th century BC piece of pottery with the inscription; "I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah" and also the discovery of similar inscriptions (also dated to the 8th century BC) found on walls at two sites, Khirbet el-Kom and Kuntillet Ajrud, both in Israel.

Would EI be just another name for the Sumarian chief god E-A (a.k.a. En-Ki)?

 

[tsig]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

I'm just putting info out there like this:

Carbon dating can only be used on materials that are less than about 50,000 years old, so it can't be used on fossils.
The ages of fossils are generally constrained by radiometric dating of suitable rocks (i.e. igneous or metamorphic) in proximity to their containing strata within the lithological sequence.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_the_ages_of_fossils_determined

But remember these fossils in Lebanon are in great shape and many like octopus are fully formed which is rare. This leads to the conclusion that the marine life was quickly covered while the marine life was alive.

We have have formed octopi swimming around?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know how old the marine life is, the material that surrounds the marine life is more than likely older than the marine life it surrounds.

(emphasis added by Slowvehicle)

...wow. Not two posts ago you were pretending to stake out the moral high ground about credibility, then you uncork this kind of unsupported assertion. Explain precisely how you reach the self-serving assumption that it is "likely" that the fossils are older than the "surrounding material"

While you are at it, explain what Cretaceous fossils at altitude in Peru have to do with a Holocene flood limited to Mesopotamia (and why Holocene locally limited Mesopotamian flood is "evidence" of the globally-destructive Noachian fludde).

Ideally, without red herrings, wild misrepresentations, and false witness....

Also with regard to marine life: From the article: Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

"Are there things that can't be carbon dated?

The method doesn't work on things that didn't get their carbon from the air. This leaves out aquatic creatures since their carbon might originate from dissolved carbonate rocks limestone. This in turn causes problems in dating animals that eat sea food.

We can't date things that are too old. After about 10 half lifes, there is very little C-14 left to measure."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

What piece(s) of the material at altitude in Peru do you, personally, think was/were dated using ¹⁴C?

...it does bad things to your credibility (what scintilla might be left of it) to continue to pretend that your dishonest claim represents any protion of any facet of reality.

When do you intend to address the chronology for which you have been asked?

 

[smartcooky]

Where did you get 1700 years?

The Old Testament wasn't written down in any kind of "final" form until about 100AD, but the Sumerian accounts of creation and the flood were written down on clay tablets (excavated from Nippur last century) which were dated at about 1600 BC

100AD minus 1600 BC = 1700 years.

The Sumerian clay tablets refer to events having taken place up to 2500 years earlier, (about 4100 BC); certainly in the same ball park as genesis and the flood.

Its evident that the biblical accounts were copied from earlier Sumerian writings, and they (the Noachian Flood, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Qu'ran's creation and flood accounts, are all part of the same mytho-historical narrative.

Time to accept it and move on!

 

[Akhenaten]

I hope I'm not too late.

My humble sacrifice to the Pharaoh.

...I can spruce it up a bit if you actually genuinely want to use it elsewhere...

ETA: Sorry for the delay - I've been away and only just got to page 11!

I love it, just how it is.

​

 

[Evolved Wookie]

I love it, just how it is.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954b72c4798d032.gif[/qimg]​

I live in your praise, Oh Mighty One.

 

[jond]

I think many who have read this thread will now think there is something to this flood story, at least something more so than they thought before they read the thread.

This lurker finds this statement to be completely unfounded. Any others? How 'bout it? Has DOC made anyone think there's something to this flood story? Anyone?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I hope I'm not too late.

My humble sacrifice to the Pharaoh.

...I can spruce it up a bit if you actually genuinely want to use it elsewhere...

<snip for space>

ETA: Sorry for the delay - I've been away and only just got to page 11!

You captured the bear perfectly!
GoodONya!

(Can one nominate a cartoon?)

 

[Evolved Wookie]

You captured the bear perfectly!
GoodONya!

Happily there was a bear drinking beer in our canteen at lunch. It wasn't a polar bear, though, so although I drew from life, I did have to change the colour.

(Can one nominate a cartoon?)

...I'm sure you can try...