It’s not just Egypt you need to explain. There are numerous other well known and researched archaeological sites (Jiahu in China, Catalhoyuk inTurkey) which have been continuously inhabited by humans since at least 7500 BC. Those folks lived right through your Flood without noticing. It’s pretty hard to claim the Flood was benign in those locations since the entire purpose was to kill all the humans on Earth except the Ark lucky few.
Attaboy, Speir … you know a losing game when you see one!
And yet, you still have the chutzpah to say, despite your inability to respond to a simple chronology, a simple timeline, and the complete absence of thousands of Egyptian human fossils in one of the longest river valleys in the entire World…
… you are just going to pretend that none of these questions matter!
I think that should end your participation in this thread, don’t you?
How about you @swamidass? What kind of golf tournament are you running? How many “gimmes” do we give out? One per player, or one per player/per hole ?!?!?
Or maybe for Speir it’s more like a gimme every time he writes a paragraph?!?!
That brings up new consideration in that it involves life origins, but I am ready to move on anyway from all the noise these guys make.
I don’t see a problem with 100,000 to 200,000 years. I don’t know how old Adam was when he exited the Garden. I do know he lived 900 afterwards, however.
Do you see a problem with the multiple human civilizations which lived right through the Flood without noticing?
Thanks to all for the input. This paradigm I believe holds promise. With the advent of radiometric dating, YEC’s should be forced to rethink their position of a young earth.
With the advent of soft tissue in fossils, old-earthers should be forced to deal head-on with the possibility of young life on an old planet.
Are you really going to flounce out without addressing a single one of the criticisms?
Sure. I will address just one, but not yours.
Here is the one I will address.
Mary Schweitzer’s iron model does not allow for contamination. So this argument against my model is basically speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth. 1. In one way you want a millions of years old fossil with soft tissue explained in a sealed, tightly-controlled environment to uphold your views and her theory, but then, 2. in another way, you want to undermine my model by claiming that that same fossil should have experienced contamination.
You can’t have it both ways and be consistent.
That’s OK, I’m well used to YECs dodging facts they can’t explain.
Sounds like gap creationism here. Why wouldn’t there be extremely large amounts of carbon in dinosaur fossils? We know the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio at the time of this supposed worldwide flood that doesn’t seem to have done much of anything in most of the world-
We should be able to actually carbon date every dinosaur fossil and find absolute ages – that is exact measurements of them dying sometime in the last 4000 years. Yet even YECs who carbon date them never get anything that is more than due to contamination in their methodology:
How do you KNOW that a particular human being named Adam lived 900 years afterward? Typical life expectancy at the dawn of argriculture was actually less than hunter gatherer society. People 6000 years ago lived to 50 or 60 years old tops. Thousands of ancient human bones and DNA have confirmed this.
I love that YEC chart for the supposed C14 dating of dinosaur fossils. Not only is every measurement way older than 6000 years (or the 4500 year ago Flood) but in some of the fossils (Triceratops #2) they get dates 9000 years different for pieces of the same individual animal.
Thanks for the chart. These look like agreeable dates.
These are outstanding data! This is precisely what one might expect to find in a YLC model…!
I remember an old conference I believe in China? where a group accidentally carbon dated dino bones, then they and their data was expelled and censored.
Thank you again. This is excellent. You have just added a significant plank to my ideas.
Randy, a better question to ask is why are these dates so agreeable? One hypothesis is this is the actual age of such dinosaur fossils buried in rocks older than 64 million years old. The other hypothesis is this effect is entirely due to background contamination.
A good example is taken from this paper outlining what the scientific community knew about radiocarbon dating bones over 30 years ago:
From the introduction:
the majority of bones for radiocarbon dating and stable isotope analyses have undergone moderate to severe diagenesis and are often contaminated with substantial amounts of humates and other foreign organic matter (Table 1).
Unfortunately the article is paywalled but it is extremely important to keep this in mind when drawing conclusions about radiocarbon dates of over 50 million year old specimen.
Outstanding data! A dinosaur with his head 9000 years older than his butt, and both ends more than 5X older than the age of the Earth!
Just what YEC expects!
Thanks for what? You arrived in great confusion, you listened to nothing, you learned nothing, and you departed in the same confusion.
Laughing. No time to shadow box. I must bow out and do some much needed research. Later…
I presume this means you’re going to visit some more creationist web sites. But that isn’t what “research” means.