Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No.A shockwave?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No.A shockwave?
Maybe it was many times longer ago.
Did it ever occur to the flood deniers that a canopy of water, mentioned in Genesis was suspended high above the earth's atmosphere (by the word of God, so no known scientific principal need apply) and may have prevented radiation in today's measure from reaching the earth's surface? That would mean that the radio-carbon content in the rocks would not have been as constant as science assumes.Maybe it was many times longer ago.
Maybe it effected radio isotope dating so it wasn't detected.
Maybe the last one. The other two, no. Mankind was never threatened by a worldwide flood.Maybe it was many times longer ago.
Maybe it effected radio isotope dating so it wasn't detected.
Maybe it was symbolic.
It helps if you quote someone when asking this. Or type "@" and then their username. You cannot rate your own posts. Or at least I can't.Why did you "winner" your own post?
Of course, you can always fall back on God did it. Is there evidence of this canopy of water? According to the evaluations I have seen, this would have induced pressures and temperatures on the earth that would have been unlivable.Did it ever occur to the flood deniers that a canopy of water, mentioned in Genesis was suspended high above the earth's atmosphere (by the word of God, so no known scientific principal need apply) and may have prevented radiation in today's measure from reaching the earth's surface? That would mean that the radio-carbon content in the rocks would not have been as constant as science assumes.
It would also explain a reason for why there are polar ice caps holding vast amounts of water even today. As global warming sees the melting of those ice caps and inundation already affecting some island nations, we should not dismiss these ice caps as the repository for the flood waters....it had to go somewhere. Right?
Do you really think there is enough water in the icecaps to raise sea level above Mount Everest? Really?Did it ever occur to the flood deniers that a canopy of water, mentioned in Genesis was suspended high above the earth's atmosphere (by the word of God, so no known scientific principal need apply) and may have prevented radiation in today's measure from reaching the earth's surface? That would mean that the radio-carbon content in the rocks would not have been as constant as science assumes.
It would also explain a reason for why there are polar ice caps holding vast amounts of water even today. As global warming sees the melting of those ice caps and inundation already affecting some island nations, we should not dismiss these ice caps as the repository for the flood waters....it had to go somewhere. Right?
Also the polar icecaps are dated by more than one overlapping dating methods. I am not sure if radiocarbon is used or not, but it would be used in only the youngest layers of ice. The oldest ice is over 200,000 years old. In fact let me check:Do you really think there is enough water in the icecaps to raise sea level above Mount Everest? Really?
Radio carbon dating is not used to date rocks.Did it ever occur to the flood deniers that a canopy of water, mentioned in Genesis was suspended high above the earth's atmosphere (by the word of God, so no known scientific principal need apply) and may have prevented radiation in today's measure from reaching the earth's surface? That would mean that the radio-carbon content in the rocks would not have been as constant as science assumes.
It would also explain a reason for why there are polar ice caps holding vast amounts of water even today. As global warming sees the melting of those ice caps and inundation already affecting some island nations, we should not dismiss these ice caps as the repository for the flood waters....it had to go somewhere. Right?
It can be used for just the youngest layers of ice. But since the ice sheets have existed for up to 400,000 years and more it even if the carbon dates were off it would not affect the other ones.Radio carbon dating is not used to date rocks.
There was a fellow I knew and you may recall him too, by the name of Tangled Bank, that had a list of the accumulated evidence against a global flood. It was very well-written and thought out. I wish I had access to his list, but alas, that is no longer available to us. I suppose I will have to make my own.It can be used for just the youngest layers of ice. But since the ice sheets have existed for up to 400,000 years and more it even if the carbon dates were off it would not affect the other ones.
How are ice cores dated? - AntarcticGlaciers.org
Can you do that? I don't think you can.Why did you "winner" your own post?
Can you do that? I don't think you can.
It helps if you quote someone when asking this. Or type "@" and then their username. You cannot rate your own posts. Or at least I can't.
OK. I cannot say for everyone else, but I am not given the option to vote on my own posts. Perhaps it is a general rule or maybe there is an anti-rabbit bias. I fall victim to that a lot.I thought I saw his name when I clicked on it.
Why did you adopt creationism in the first place? Who told you out was true? Even Jews don't interpret Genesis literally, and it's their book.Well I think you can question the Bible and you should; but it will be found true you just have to dig deeper and you'll find the answers. I know I can't answer all questions already; but I can trust what I've already learned and that's enough to convince me. I build on what I know and I learn more.
I think a lot of your doubts about the flood can be answered with a bit of thinking or research. But we creationists can't be expected to discard our belief in the scriptures just because we can't answer every single doubt or question that may arise. Because as I said we're already convinced based on other things we've learned.
Of course, you can always fall back on God did it. Is there evidence of this canopy of water? According to the evaluations I have seen, this would have induced pressures and temperatures on the earth that would have been unlivable.
This is what your faith in God is reduced to?Why couldn't God have just placed magic bubbles around all the people and animals He wanted to save? Why not provide them with an underwater city to ride out the flood? If you are going to resort to magic, why just go with that?
Yes, I do know that.....its a unique principle of water to float when its frozen, when everything other liquid sinks. Can you tell me why its a good thing in connection with the polar ice caps? What would have happened to the waters under the ice that teem with life if the frozen waters had sunk to the bottom? Think about it....The polar icecaps would have broken free and floated from their current positions in a global flood. You do know that ice floats right?
What's fascinating is your complete ignorance of the God you claim to worship.Science doesn't matter in one instance and then you appeal to it in another. Fascinating.