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

[SlackerBabbath]

It also says this:

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.

ETA
and

This first combined epic, known as the "Old Babylonian" version, dates to the 18th century BC and is titled after its incipit, Shūtur eli sharrī ("Surpassing All Other Kings"). Only a few fragments of it have survived. The later "Standard Babylonian" version dates from the 13th to the 10th centuries BC and bears the incipit Sha naqba īmuru ("He who Saw the Deep"). Fragments of approximately two thirds of this longer, twelve-tablet version {added: the one edited by Sin-liqe-unninn} have been recovered.

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

Precisely, so neither the Epic of Gilgamesh nor the Book of Genesis still don't predate the much older 18th century BC texts that they are both obviously based upon. And if the Book of Genesis is based upon 18th century BC Sumerian mythology, then it too must be mythology because you cannot base the truth upon mythology. And although it's true that only a few fragments survived, it's obviously still enough for it to be considered as the original version of the same story.

 

[DOC]

DOC, do you now acknowledge that you deliberately changed the text to add the word "carbon" in front of dating?

Yes, I added the word with brackets to read {Carbon}. Brackets is a sign something has been added to the original text. I already said I added the word because it crossed my mind that just the word "dating" alone would cause a joke attempt being made and then others would join in on the derail (things like this seem to happen a lot). Also at the time it hadn't sunk in yet that there is supposedly another way to date by dating the rocks in the area of the fossils.

And thus this all much ado about nothing

And that you continued to do it despite being corrected on it numerous times?

I didn't add carbon again. I will continue to add bracketed words if I believe it makes something more clear to the reader. So if you see brackets in the future it is an attempt to make something more clear. Although I now have a feeling some people will put brackets in my quotes to make things less clear, or to confuse people new to the thread, or to harass. We'll see if my prophecy comes true.

And that as late as today you were still arguing against carbon dating which nobody but you brought up to begin with?

I now have a better understanding of carbon dating on fossils than I did a week ago.

 

[Akhenaten]

<polite snip>

Now I can bring to the table what I know of the mytho-history of Mesopotamia as my contribution to attacking the second part of the premise, while others like Dinwar can bring their considerable experience with the formation and age of fossils, to attack the first part of the premise.

I don't see where the problem is with that approach.

One problem with such an approach is that it's not at all suited to a discussion in the R&P sub-forum and is, when dealing with the type of fact-repellant apologetics that one encounters here, a huge waste of effort.

It's a worthy approach in the HL&A sub-forum, however, and fully deserving of a thread there.

A second, and possibly more important problem is the distraction that it creates from the really simple issues and direct questions that need to be addressed in order to refute the premise of the OP.

In other words, you end up creating a situation that allows DOC to wander off into topics like the historicity of Alexander the Great, whether or not Moses signed the non-existant paper on which Genesis was written and whether the thoughts of the people who created the original flood myths are reflected in quotes from the New Testament.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Then I assume that if the info below is true which someone posted earlier

"So archeologicaly it looks like two flooding events happened, one that formed the Persian Gulf, possibly about 10,000 years ago, and a later ..."

---it would not affect your belief in the flood story. The post by (I believe Slackerbabbath) was posted on April 30 on this thread according to Google search but I can't find it.

It was also posted like this on another site:

...As it happens, archeologicaly, we know that where the Persian Gulf is today was definately once an entirely dry basin (apart from several rivers that flowed through it that were connected to the Euphrates and Tigris river systems) about 15,000 years ago and that sometime after the last glaciation period ended, which was around 12,000 years ago, when the glaciers started melting and sea levels started to gradualy rise, it looks like some sort of natural dam once existed where the Straits of Hormuz are today which eventualy gave way, allowing the Arabian sea to suddenly spill over it creating the Persian Gulf as we see it today in a very short time.There's also evidence of relatively more recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak just under 5000 years ago...

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-737277-p-56.html

Just to clear up any possible accusations of plagiarism, yes, that was originaly written for a thread on the ultimate-guitar.com forum, but it was written by me, and I can hardly plagarise myself now can I?

 

[Mojo]

DOC, no one is fooled. You were caught in a foolish lie.

No I wasn't. If I was show me how and watch me show you the argument is not rational.

OK, here it is again.

Here is what Gawdzilla posted:

Were the fossils estimated to be that old or was the material surrounding them estimated to be that old? And who was the person who did the estimating?

DOC, dating is a science, so trying to AIG the issue just doesn't work.

Here is what you posted in response:

Were the fossils estimated to be that old or was the material surrounding them estimated to be that old? And who was the person who did the estimating?

DOC, {Carbon} dating is a science...

A relatively young science that has problems.

From the article: Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating -- From the website
The California Institute for Ancient Studies

"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

The lie is easy to spot (you edited Gawdzilla's post to imply that it was about carbon dating), and it is easy to see that it is foolish because Gawdzilla's post, as it was before you edited it, is still visible in its original context.

Now, you need to show us that "the argument is not rational". You haven't made it clear whether you meant your argument or joobz's argument, so feel free to choose either.

 

[Sideroxylon]

What does this have to do with the Lebanese Mountain Squid and the Peruvian Alpine Shrimp?

Not to mention the Sierra rock halibut.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Already responded.

But not to that AiG link that I keep posting that argues the Bible talks about a global flood.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, I added the word with brackets to read {Carbon}. Brackets is a sign something has been added to the original text.

Drivel.


The rest of your post is not worth answering because it's just more of the same transparently self-serving dishonesty with which you've approached this entire matter.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, I added the word with brackets to read {Carbon}. Brackets is a sign something has been added to the original text.

Yes, but words in brackets are added to clarify what the quotation means (for example to replace a pronoun with a person's name, where the quotation is about the named person), not to change the meaning of the quotation. So that's another failed excuse.

 

[AdMan]

Yes, I added the word with brackets to read {Carbon}. Brackets is a sign something has been added to the original text. I already said I added the word because it crossed my mind that just the word "dating" alone would cause a joke attempt being made and then others would join in on the derail (things like this seem to happen a lot). Also at the time it hadn't sunk in yet that there is supposedly another way to date by dating the rocks in the area of the fossils.

And thus this all much ado about nothing

No, you've made your lack of knowledge of dating and willingness to be dishonest patently obvious.

 

[abaddon]

This scholar (Norman Geisler) who has written 60 books thinks Moses wrote it for some of the following reasons:

He could write 5000 books. If they are wrong, they are wrong. Quantity does not equal quality.

...There are several lines of evidence to indicate that Moses, the
great lawgiver and deliverer of Israel who wrote the other four books of the
law, was the author of Genesis. (1)

Sure. He described his own funeral. How credible is that?

The earliest and continual tradition of
'the Jewish people, as recorded in the Talmud, attributes this book to
Moses. (2) Moses is the only person we know of from this early time peri
od who had the ability to write this book.

And the astonishing ability to describe his own burial. Fancy that.

The rest of the Israelites were a
nation of uneducated slaves, whereas Moses was a highly educated son
of the king (Acts 7:22). (3) Moses was the only one who had both the in
terest and information to write Genesis.

Sure. He was so interested, he recorded his own death and burial.

Being Jewish Moses would have
had access to the family records of his ancestors (cf. Gen. 5:1; 10:1;
25:19; etc.) which were no doubt brought down to Egypt by Jacob (Gen.
46). Since Moses was bent on delivering his people from Egypt, it is nat
ural to assume that he was familiar with the promises of God passed down
by his forefathers that God would indeed deliver them (cf. Gen. 46:3–4;
Exod. 2:24).

Yep, Moses was so hell bent on escaping the Egyptians that he took time to pack up a whole bag load of scrolls which he then toted across the Red Sea and then simply chucked them. Totally plausible.

(4) Citations from Genesis show that the rest of the Old Test
ament regards it as part of the Law of Moses (Deut. 1:8; II Kings 13:23; I
Chron. 1:1ff.). Since Moses was the author of the other "books of Moses,"
as we will see later, it is reasonable to attribute the first book of Moses to
him as well...

And we return to claiming the bible is true because it says it's true. How tired.

IN THE BEGINNING GOD
By Dr. Hal Harless

http://ffgreenville.org/notes/books/gen_2013/2013-01-27-gen-001-001.pdf

Are you really going to hitch your wagon to this bucket of crap?

 

[Akhenaten]

This scholar (Norman Geisler) who has written 60 books thinks Moses wrote it for some of the following reasons:

<snip ridiculously circular argument>

How many times, DOC?

 

[abaddon]

Not really when you consider the universal language used in the flood story is used elsewhere in other ancient writings to describe something less than the whole world.

Hold on a second. Just a few posts back, you claimed that you never proposed a partial flood, yet here you are proposing a partial flood.

Explain.

 

[DOC]

It also says this:

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.

ETA
and

This first combined epic, known as the "Old Babylonian" version, dates to the 18th century BC and is titled after its incipit, Shūtur eli sharrī ("Surpassing All Other Kings"). Only a few fragments of it have survived. The later "Standard Babylonian" version dates from the 13th to the 10th centuries BC and bears the incipit Sha naqba īmuru ("He who Saw the Deep"). Fragments of approximately two thirds of this longer, twelve-tablet version {added: the one edited by Sin-liqe-unninn} have been recovered.

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

Precisely, so neither the Epic of Gilgamesh nor the Book of Genesis still don't predate the much older 18th century BC texts that they are both obviously based upon...

If a New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2002 and another New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2010 and they both have similar facts. That doesn't mean one account is taken from another.

Also we only have a few fragments of the 18th century texts. Can you tell us exactly what those few fragments say about the flood before being edited by Sin-ling -unnini in the 13th century.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC

I'll ask again. How do you explain 85 million year old rocks on a 6000 year old planet or are you saying that the rocks aren't 85 million years old?

You don't have to explain it if you are an Old Earth Creationist like a Norman Geilser or Dr. Hugh Ross.

That's probably why InkBlotTest didn't ask either of those idiots. Especially the misspelt one.

You would have to ask that question to a Young Earth Creationist.

Which bit of "How do you explain . . ." is giving you the most trouble?

Is it the same sort of thing that makes you unable to answer this post?

Your intimation that Pangea was one continent as recently as 6K years ago seems to indicate otherwise.

Suppose you lay out a chronology:

In your opinion, when did 'god' create the world?

In your opinion, when was Pangea last a single continent?

In your opinion, when did the "global flood" happen?

In your opinion, when did the orogeny of the Himalayas happen?

Please to put those 4 events in the order you want to be able to claim that they happened, with the dates you want to wish for them.

 

[DOC]

Hold on a second. Just a few posts back, you claimed that you never proposed a partial flood...

Which post?

 

[Akhenaten]

If a New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2002 and another New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2010 and they both have similar facts. That doesn't mean one account is taken from another.

Also we only have a few fragments of the 18th century texts. Can you tell us exactly what those few fragments say before edited by Sin-ling -unnini in the 13th century.

I hope those who insist on continuing to discuss mesopotamian mythology will at some stage realise the way in which they are facilitating these ridiculous derails.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If a New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2002 and another New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2010 and they both have similar facts. That doesn't mean one account is taken from another.

Depends on which 'facts' you are talking about. If they both relate verifiable facts from the actual event, then we can assume reality is the source, but if they relate some of the unending nonsense also written about 911, then not.

Hans

 

[abaddon]

Which post?

Surely you are taking the mick at this point? You really don't remember your vehement denials? You really want it pointed out for all to see?

I hesitate to embarrass you, but you know full well that you ranted in this very thread about that very subject.

 

[SlackerBabbath]

I hope those who insist on continuing to discuss mesopotamian mythology will at some stage realise the way in which they are facilitating these ridiculous derails.

To be fair, it's a perfectly valid argument (or at least it seems so to me) against the fossils found in mountains being anything to do with with the 'Biblical flood' because it argues that the 'Biblical flood' never happenend because it is just mythology based upon earlier mythology, so the fossils obviously couldn't be connected to something that 'didn't happen'.

If a New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2002 and another New Yorker writes a book on 911 in 2010 and they both have similar facts. That doesn't mean one account is taken from another.

Even if they tell the same story using the same characters?

Also we only have a few fragments of the 18th century texts. Can you tell us exactly what those few fragments say about the flood before being edited by Sin-ling -unnini in the 13th century.

To be fair, there have been no fragments of the earlier version of the Epic of Gilgamesh that include the flood narrative, (remember, the flood narrative in Giglamesh is a story within a story) but, the Sumerian flood narrative that the later version found in Sin-ling -unnini's version is obviously based upon is found in the 'Eridu Genesis', dated to 1600 BC, which, again, predates the traditionaly assumed time of Moses.