Mycenae and Minoa

[juliod]

OK, so moving on to the next problem in understanding a creationist theory or chronology, here is the next question.

Did the Mycenean and Minoan civilizations exist before or after the great flood?

Since these civilizations were buried it seems that they were before the flood, and were submerged along with all the animals that were fossilized.

But there is a problem with this. Although we know almost nothing about these civilizations, the script known as Linear B, used in administrative records, was deciphered (by one of the greatest feats of intellectual effort) and shown to be a form of proto-greek. So these tablets (and hence the civilization) must have existed after the Tower of Babel incident.

On the other hand, if these nations existed after the flood (anbd Babel, whenever that was), then that brings them to within the scientifically-dated age (c. 2000 BC). That would imply that scientific dating techniques are accurate, and therefore the biblical chronology is wrong.

What a conundrum!

[Gollum]

We have very little concise calbration methods for these dating experiments. I appreciate what they are trying to accomplish and note their findings. I personally don't think it amounts to proof.

Do you mean "precise" rather than "concise"?

The measurements of radioactive decay are some of the most consistent and immune to perturbations of anything found in nature. The only potential problems that I see are the possibility of contamination of samples by foreign material and such things as "carbon reservoirs" where an organism got its carbon from a source other than the air (mulosks from ocean sediments for example.)

I don't think that it's intended to be a "proof" of anything. It is a technique for estimating ages of materials and, like any measurement in the physical world, is never without some inherent error. The literature on the subject is extensive (Google "Radiometric Dating" for some samples) and its difficult to understand how such a massive fraudulent piece of science could have survived if it is indeed a fraud is creationists (at least the young-earth sub-species) claim.

[YEC]

What was the ratio of 12C to 14C at the time of the flood?

Who mentioned carbon dating?

I was asking if these civilizations existed before or after the flood. Don't you have an answer, YEC?

DanZ

My quess....after the flood.

If they were pre-flood all reminents of them would most likely have been destroyed.

[Jose]

So how does creationist dating work? Everything dated to before 4004 BC is automatically wrong, while anything dated to after that date is OK?

Not for me. I look at the amazing evidence we look at today. I like to think critically about everything. I believe that the Science relies too heavily on mathematical extrapolation. We have very little concise calbration methods for these dating experiments. I appreciate what they are trying to accomplish and note their findings. I personally don't think it amounts to proof.

You raise an interesting point. It is essential to look at all data with skepticism. Eventually, though, it is necessary to form some kind of tentative conclusion--some kind of interpretation of the data, or explanation for how the observed facts came to be. So, we have all of these different ratios of parent isotope to daughter, and all of these measured decay rates (which are virtually impossible to perturb, at least under conditions we find on earth). Using simple math, we come up with calculated ages, all of which fit a consistent pattern. How do you interpret this? What is your explanation?

The standard YEC explanation is that "the results are wrong" or "decay rates were different" or "that's just how God created things." At least, that's the interpretation for ages that are calculated to be prior to 4004 BC. After 4004 BC, similar calculations seem to be OK--and the only difference is the magic date of 4004 BC.

Any logic we apply to Mycena and Minoa should, it seems, apply equally to other archeological data.

[juliod]

If they were pre-flood all reminents of them would most likely have been destroyed.

You mean like the bristlecone pines, which not only survived the flood intact, but alive!

Ha ha, you really walked face-first into that one.

DanZ

[juliod]

Any logic we apply to Mycena and Minoa should, it seems, apply equally to other archeological data.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to get at in this thread.

Let's say we have two sites, one dated to 10,000 BC, and one (like many sites in Minoa) to 1,500 BC. YECs accept the Minoan dates, but reject the earlier one's.

No, they say, Site A must date to 4000 BC of later.

But this gives us a simple correction factor. If a site dated to 10000 BC (or 12,000 BP) is at most 6000 BP (correction factor of 0.5) then a site dated to 3500 BP is actually about 1750 BP (or 250 AD).

Does Minoa date to after the Roman Empire?

DanZ

[axeplayer]

Qoute: Gollum-

Bit difficult to say since we don't have a date for the flood nor any evidence that it happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How then, gollum, do you explain the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains? Or the fact that the sediment in many plateaus and mountains is curved, not sharp and rigged. The curved sediment is due to the flood. the water softened the sediment and allowed it to curve. The flood is the only explanation for the curved sediment, since when sediment tries to bend, it simply cracks, forming the rigged sediment in a small amount of rock formations.

[axeplayer]

Qoute: Gollum-

Bit difficult to say since we don't have a date for the flood nor any evidence that it happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How then, gollum, do you explain the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains? Or the fact that the sediment in many plateaus and mountains is curved, not sharp and rigged. The curved sediment is due to the flood. the water softened the sediment and allowed it to curve. The flood is the only explanation for the curved sediment, since when sediment tries to bend, it simply cracks, forming the rigged sediment in a small amount of rock formations.

[micatala]

The flood is one possible explanation, but certainly not the only one. Perhaps the sediment was under water when it became curved, and then was lifted up by geological forces.

[juliod]

How then, gollum, do you explain the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains?

Just to keep things on the subject of this thread, are you arguing that Minoa and Mincenae were buried by the flood? I.e. The same process that created this supposed sediment in the Himalayas?

DanZ

[Lotan]

How then, gollum, do you explain the fossils of reptiles found in the Himalayan Mountains?...The flood is the only explanation for the curved sediment...

It appears that you have confused geology with theology. Try this.
Why would you believe non-expert creationist propagandists over trained geologists anyway? Is it because that is what you would like to believe?