Age of mankind, dating, and the flood

But that's not what you're doing. You're claiming that processes that are merely legitmate processes that actually exist are the ones actually responsible in contradiction to all evidence. Then you're ignoring, or just as often misunderstanding or misinterpreting, the evidence.Follow the evidence where it leads. (And use the correct definition of terms, like "correlated" and "terrestrial".)--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Concerning Carl Baugh's hammer, refutation would be easy if Carl would allow the wood in the handle to be radiocarbon dated by independent researchers. He won't, but even within Baugh's closed world there's evidence he's wrong. In 1997 Baugh supporter David Lines' website reported that radiocarbon dating results showed the hammer's handle to range from 0 to 700 years old, far younger than the flood and consistent with exactly what it looks like, a hammer from the 18th or 19th century. See The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact.--Percy

Djufo's previous point was that the flood didn't cover all land, mostly just coastal areas. My guess is that he's saying the Biblical flood was actually rising sea levels after the last ice age.--Percy

You have words you said in reply, but no answers. Having never met us nor studied our backgrounds in detail, you know this how? Or is it perhaps just one of the myths you believe? Homo Sapiens are apes, not monkeys. We're more distantly related to monkeys, but we're not monkeys. There's no box. This is science, which studies everything in the universe. Science doesn't "know" anything, if you mean that word in any absolute sense. Science is tentative, always ready to change its views in light of new evidence or improved insight. Sure it has. Here's the definitions from Dictionary.com:

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
   ​
2. stories or matter of this kind:
   realm of myth.
   ​
3. any invented story, idea, or concept:
   His account of the event is pure myth.
   ​
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
   ​
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The most substantial difference between myth and science is one lacks evidence and the other doesn't. Once a myth has evidence it's true it isn't a myth anymore. The worst thing you can think of to say about scientists is that they're imitating religion? Interesting.Science studies the natural world, not myths. In all the science books and articles I've read, I've rarely come across the word "myth" unless myths were the object of study. There you are making unsupported assumptions about us again. I suspect most of us here pretty much use the definition of myth I provided above. For example, I think most of us here regard the Jesus myth as unsupported accounts that serve as the foundation for one of the most important religions in world history, not "bullshit", "non-important" or a "joke". You're attempting to argue that Biblical myths must be accepted as true because they mention cities that actually exist, but many myths mention places that actually exist. The Robin Hood myth also mentions cities that actually exist, but in the absence of evidence we're under no obligation to believe Robin Hood existed and his exploits real. The Tigris/Euphrates flood plain experienced regular spring flooding, like the Nile. What? The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis provide evidenced-based explanations for how and why the great flood happened? Tell us more, please. I don't think you really mean to claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh or Genesis say anything about an ice age, and especially not about a "portion of ice separated from a cap traveling close to the equator, melting, and causing the sea level to raise." And the evidence for this? Since there's no evidence for a global flood covering even the mountain tops, and since there's not enough water in the world to flood to such a depth, there's no need for explanations of how it could have happened. That exercise is left for those who believe, in the absence of all evidence, that a global flood happened sometime in the last 10,000 years or so. Which is exactly what you're trying to do with your, "alleged big mass of ice coming up to the equator and melting at a fast pace." Will there be evidence along with this "information"?--Percy

We're still waiting for you to "prove" what our ancestors knew about our origins. So far all you have is unsupported claims that what they wrote was fact and not myth. I think you're confusing science and Hollywood. You're saying some pretty weird things. Our understanding of the origins of agriculture comes from archeological studies. It's no problem if you would prefer to avoid the term argicultural revolution for something that took millennia, but the shift in the archeological record from hunter/gatherer to agrarian economies is dramatic.And biology requires that everyone had 16 great great great grandfathers (not necessarily all different people), but only with evidence can we say anything more about them.--Percy

I think one actually has to identify the flaws instead of just claiming there are flaws. Wouldn't it be wonderful if winning a debate were as easy as saying, "Your data is flawed." Alas. This is the first I've heard this claim, so Googling it I could only find references to the Sumerians believing there were 11 planets, not 9. It seems to be based upon this image (click to enlarge): If you count the bodies around the sun, there are 11. Some argue that one of those bodies is the moon, so that leaves 10 celestial bodies, except there's an extra celetial body alone by itself to the right, making 11 again. Some argue that this represents a former planet that is now the asteroid belt, but recent research indicates there isn't enough mass in the asteroid belt to have ever comprised a planet.But whether the Sumerians thought there were 9, 10, 11 or 12 planets, what's important is the data that drove their thinking. What do we know about that data?--Percy

Hi Djufo,Could you use the little reply button beneath the message you're replying to? When you instead use the General Reply button to reply to a specific message you break the chain of replies, making it difficult to read back through a thread. If you look at the bottom of any message you'll notice two link sections, one section with a link to the message replied to, the other with a list of links to replies. Those links are absent when you use the General Reply button. "Be not wise in thine own eyes." (Proverbs 3:7)Which species are you thinking of when you judge us primitive by comparison? This might be a garbled form of a factoid you picked up somewhere. Each human baby possesses on average around a hundred mutations, so in the decade since the completion of the Human Genome Project there have been over a hundred billion mutations. As I said before, what they thought they knew isn't as important as how they knew it. The same standard applies to this. You think you know which celestial bodies the Sumerians included in their count of 12, but what evidence did you use to conclude this? Why did they count our moon but not Ganymede, which is larger? Why did they count Pluto but not any of the other Pluto-sized planets out that way? The Sumerians believed the Earth to be the 7th planet? It's possible, I guess. I have no reason to doubt this, but I have no reason to doubt any other number you might have claimed. But Googling this I find no support for it. What evidence led you to believe this? Where did the Sumerians say this? I can find no evidence that the Sumerians accepted heliocentrism. I'm not questioning Sumerian knowledge. I'm questioning your claims about Sumerian knowledge. In the absence of you providing any evidence I will not be able to tell the difference between accurate and inaccurate claims. According to the Wikipedia article on Planets beyond Neptune: Your claims about Sumerian astronomical knowledge are very specific - are these your own interpretations or are you reading them somewhere? If you're passing on information you're reading elsewhere then it might speed things up if instead of serving as a middleman you provided a link or a reference.--Percy

Hi Djufo,It's impossible to tell the difference between your claims and fiction. Things that are true are supported by evidence, and you can't seem to find any for anything you claim.--Percy

Because of the evidence of George Washington and the founding fathers. No, there is no evidence of this, and literally tons of evidence of the details of all their lives.Evidence is how we figure out what is true about the real world. If you have any evidence for anything you're claiming about the Sumerians and the rest, now would be a good time to begin describing it.--Percy