How do flood apologists explain these?

marmot

Spear points dating to thousands of years before the Flood (or even Adam's alleged creation, for that matter) found preserved in situ among mammoth bones in Naco, Arizona.

Or the 14,000 year-old footprint of a child at a mammoth hunting camp unearthed in a bog in Monte Verde, Chile:

The kicker is that this isn't even the oldest evidence for human settlement of the Americas. Since the WT loves to trot out frozen mammoth carcasses as "proof" that mammoths died in the flood, who were these mammoth eaters in North America? Were they killed in the flood? Did Noah's "preaching" work extend to North and South America? Is the book of Genesis really bullshit?

Vidiot

marmot - "How do flood apologists explain these?"

They don't.

They simply dismiss the dating methods as flawed, biased, or just plain wrong.

Crazyguy

Another thought that disproves the flood is the islands of Madagascar and Australia. On both of these islands the animals evolved to be unique to just that island. Another nail in the coffin of the flood is drawings on cave ceilings in Indonesia, they used another altogether different dating process to date crystals that formed over the pictures. They dated them to around 40000 years old.

Perry

In the words of Dr. Robert Lee, in 1981 he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

Incidentally, live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago.
Article

cofty

Who is Dr Lee and why does he think that experts in radio carbon dating are less aware of it's limitations than he is?

cofty

live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago

Of course. The precise reason why RC dating gives incorrect data for some samples such as mollusk shells is very well understood.

This is a typical example of lying for Jesus. You are no more intellectually honest than the writers of the Watchtower.

JeffT

warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation.

Written in 1981. Maybe he and the Watchtower are using the same dictionary to define "soon."

Crazyguy

There are now many forms of dating other then carbon 14. One of the best way to prove the flood just a story is looking at canyons kike the grand canyon. It took a very long time to cut away a canyon of this size and studying the dirt proves no flood. Ice core samples from the south pole is another one.

LisaRose

The evidence is overwhelming and not debatable except to those who need to believe in fairy tales and quote dated material from people who are not experts in the field and have an ax to grind.

But it's easier to believe the entire body of scientists in academia are making things up, in cahoots and faking the evidence than to believe a fairy tale written thousands of years ago didn't actually happen.

Village Idiot

Perry, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

In the article above you will find the reason why mussels cannot be dated but other fossils can. The situation with mussels is very different than with other creatures.

Try reading scientific answers to creationists (Mostly Young Earth Creationists at that).

This is also an excellent book about scientific answers to creationists. Over 500 oversized pages of fine print dedicated to almost every creationist argument:

Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy.

How do flood apologists explain these?

Share this