Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[Eliu]

@zoedoidge
I know!
It's always "pseudo" when there is the slightest possibility that the Bible is right.
Always.
An example.
What about radiometric dating methods?
Of course we know they works this way:
The (known) starting quantity of “mother element” is halved (divided by 2) after a (known) period of time, a specific time for a specific element.
Measuring the actual (or remaining) quantity (so it becomes “known&#8221 of the “mother element”, making a simple calculation, we can discover the age of the sample we are trying to date.
Perfect.
…in theory.
No one knows the starting quantity of any element.
So it’s not possible to make calculations for the radiometric dating.
It’s a main element for making this calculation.
How can we consider those methods reliable
Just by faith.
One has to believe strongly that these methods are reliable, for they, speaking in reality (and in mathematics), are not.
It needs a strong faith to believe in evolution.
Stronger than the faith of Christians.
God Bless.

 

[Krok]

…in theory.
No one knows the starting quantity of any element.

Liar.

Of course we can and we do. For example, biotite, the mineral commonly used in the K/Ar method, has an approximate chemical formula K(Mg,Fe)3AlSi3O10(F,OH)2. That is the approcimate chemical formula for the crystal lattice of biotite.

Seeing that Argon is a noble gas, it can't be incorporated in the crystal lattice of biotite when it forms. So, at formation of biotite, the amount of Ar in the crystal lattice is zero. That means that all the Argon measured in the crystal lattice of biotite is a result of radiometric decay of K.

Apart from that; we also have other dating metods where the amount of the original isotope does not have to be determined.

Please stop lying. Some of us are educated.

 

[GawdAweful]

@zoedoidge
I know!
It's always "pseudo" when there is the slightest possibility that the Bible is right.
Always.
An example.
What about radiometric dating methods?
Of course we know they works this way:
The (known) starting quantity of “mother element” is halved (divided by 2) after a (known) period of time, a specific time for a specific element.
Measuring the actual (or remaining) quantity (so it becomes “known”) of the “mother element”, making a simple calculation, we can discover the age of the sample we are trying to date.
Perfect.
…in theory.
No one knows the starting quantity of any element.
So it’s not possible to make calculations for the radiometric dating.
It’s a main element for making this calculation.
How can we consider those methods reliable
Just by faith.
One has to believe strongly that these methods are reliable, for they, speaking in reality (and in mathematics), are not.
It needs a strong faith to believe in evolution.
Stronger than the faith of Christians.
God Bless.

Some radiometric dating is self-correcting.

A link to those willing to take the time to read it:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

I use to believe as you do - a full blown creationist in my younger days. Trying to disprove evolution and doing the research convinced me, as it has others, that I was wrong.

 

[Noaidi]

It is true that the Flood doubtless was a cataclysmic event. There is reason to believe the tall mountains of today are the result of the Flood, as well as the deep ocean rifts. (Psalm 104:6-9) There is no reason to believe the oceans boiled.

No reason to believe the oceans boiled? You are aware that impact generates heat, yes? Given the volume and rate of water falling within the short period of time....

Do you dispute this?

 

[Eliu]

@Krok
Hello!
Thanks for the nice words!
Sorry, but I’m not used to say if arguments are or are not good based on the clothes of the speaker!
You make a Potassium-Argon example. Ok, let’s discuss for it.
Argon is a noble gas. So, as you correctly say, it “escapes” and won’t be incorporated in biotite crystals at the time of their formation.
But… Argon is a noble gas also after the biotite formation, as it is before. Argon escapes during the biotite formation and Argon escapes after biotite formation. Argons escapes from rocks in which it accumulates.
As Helium escapes from the insides of balloons, Argons escapes from rocks.
So, obviously, anyone will find less Argon than expected, so the measured age will be greater than it should really be!
This is why, while dating Potassium-Argon of recent (2-3 centuries) lava flows and rock formation, of KNOWN age of 2-3 centuries for their formation… we obtained an age of 2-3 millions years for their formation.
If a dating method makes errors of “4 zeroes” dimension while dating rocks of KNOWN age formation… why should it be trusted for objects of UNKNOWN age formation? What reason, if not just for “faith”?
Personally, for these reasons, I can’t trust it.
God Bless!

@GawdAwful
Hello!
I can say the opposite. I strongly believed in evolution until recently, when I started to ask myself if what I was believing was correct.
I started to make research, to read and confront materials.
So I discovered that evolution was wrong. Also id dating methods.
God bless you.

 

[Krok]

@Krok Hello! Thanks for the nice words!
Sorry, but I’m not used to say if arguments are or are not good based on the clothes of the speaker!
You make a Potassium-Argon example. Ok, let’s discuss for it.
Argon is a noble gas. So, as you correctly say, it “escapes”....

Liar. I didn't say that.

... and won’t be incorporated in biotite crystals at the time of their formation.

What I'm saying is that Ar is a noble gas and therefore won't parttake in the chemical reactions for forming the biotite crystal littices. Basic chemistry. Thus, chemically Ar can't be incorporated in biotite crystal lattices.

But… Argon is a noble gas also after the biotite formation, as it is before. Argon escapes during the biotite formation and Argon escapes after biotite formation. Argons escapes from rocks in which it accumulates.

Unfortunately for you, Ar formed after crystal formation, due to radiometric decay, is chemically captured in the cryustal lattices. As long as the crystal exists, that Ar is "captured" in the crystal lattice. Part of the crystal.

As Helium escapes from the insides of balloons, Argons escapes from rocks.

Unfortunaletly for you, it doesn't "escape" from the crystal lattices. It's bound chemically.

So, obviously, anyone will find less Argon than expected, so the measured age will be greater than it should really be!

Unfortunately for you, know you won't find "less Ar than expected" in the crystal lattices. These are chemically bound.

This is why, while dating Potassium-Argon of recent (2-3 centuries) lava flows and rock formation, of KNOWN age of 2-3 centuries for their formation… we obtained an age of 2-3 millions years for their formation.

Only very stupid , very dishonest or both creationists will even try to date any young rock with the K/Ar method. Big reason is technological restrictions.

If a dating method makes errors of “4 zeroes” dimension while dating rocks of KNOWN age formation… why should it be trusted for objects of UNKNOWN age formation? What reason, if not just for “faith”?

No basic education on your side.

Personally, for these reasons, I can’t trust it.[/qiote] Luckily, it doesn't matter what you trust or mistrust. It's what the specialists on the subject trust or mistrust, which matters.

God Bless!

May the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Noodly Appendages. Then you might also start lying less.

 

[Eliu]

@Krok
Hello!
Sorry for my English, it’s not this good. Sorry alsofor not wear the “clothes” needed to talk to “educated” ones, for I’m not thiseducated.
Of course noble gases don’t bound chemically withnothing. It’s for the basic “definition” of “noble gas”.
It can only be “trapped” inside the crystal structureof an element. But under some condition of pressure or temperature, it canescape. In the boundary zone near crystals, it can escape.
The initial amount of Argon in crystal formation shouldbe zero. We can found molten lava with Argon inside of it. So starting quantityof Argon will not be zero, so we will date the rock older than its real age.There is uncertainity, so, for the starting quantity of the “mother element”also for this method, as for others.
It’s not absolute, and it’s not working good withother methods. Usually, different methods, different ages. The age that “fits”better in the evolutionary model, is usually chosen. But this is some kind ofcircular reasoning.
An d why not test the dating methods with rocks ofknown age? Maybe it should be showed that they don’t work really good?
It’s the same as for using C14 on dinosaurs fossils.In more than one measurement, it was found inside the fossils, in a percentagethat gave 20-30 thousands of years. Without contamination.
Something like this:
“You can’t use C14 on dinosaurs!”
“Why?”
“Because they are 70 million years old!”
Circular reasoning.
God bless!

 

[Krok]

@Krok Hello!
Sorry for my English, it’s not this good. Sorry alsofor not wear the “clothes” needed to talk to “educated” ones, for I’m not thiseducated.

Actually, you are completely uneducated in dating methods.

Of course noble gases don’t bound chemically withnothing. It’s for the basic “definition” of “noble gas”.

Exactly, thus, there won't be any Ar bound in the lattices of biotite crystals when they form. The initial concentration in the lattices of biotite crystals will be zero. Basic chemistry.

It can only be “trapped” inside the crystal structureof an element. But under some condition of pressure or temperature, it canescape. In the boundary zone near crystals, it can escape.

Unfortunaltely for you and luckily for the real word, the Ar bound in crystal lattices can't "escape", as long as the crystal exists.

The initial amount of Argon in crystal formation shouldbe zero.

Basic chemistry. The inistial amount of Ar in the crystal lattices is zero. No word salad will change that.

We can found molten lava with Argon inside of it.

Of course molten lava has Ar inside it. Molten lava don't consist of crystals with lattices. These crystals form from , for example, olten lava.

So starting quantityof Argon will not be zero, so we will date the rock older than its real age.

No, any biotite crystal will start of with no Ar in it's crystal lattices. Word salads and lies won't change that.

There is uncertainity, so, for the starting quantity of the “mother element”also for this method, as for others.

No uncertainty about it. biotite crystal lattices start with zero Ar in the crystal lattices.

It’s not absolute, and it’s not working good withother methods.

It certainly is an absolute. Biotite crystals would start off with zero Ar in the lattices.

Usually, different methods, different ages. The age that “fits”better in the evolutionary model, is usually chosen. But this is some kind ofcircular reasoning.

Lies won't turn into the truth. it's doesn't matter how many times you lie.

An d why not test the dating methods with rocks ofknown age? Maybe it should be showed that they don’t work really good?

Maybe because the specialists are not stupid, but you are. I mean, even Wiki knows that young rocks can't be dated by the K/Ar method.

It’s the same as for using C14 on dinosaurs fossils.In more than one measurement, it was found inside the fossils, in a percentagethat gave 20-30 thousands of years. Without contamination.

Methinks old Eliu is lying again. It's all he has. lies.

Something like this:

“You can’t use C14 on dinosaurs!”
“Why?”
“Because they are 70 million years old!”
Circular reasoning.

Nothing circular about that. The C- method is accurate to maximum 70 000 years. You can't use carbon dating on organic material older than 70 000 years. You will get an inaccurate answer.

God bless!

May the Holy FSM touch you with a noodly appendage to enable you not to lie too much.

 

[rusra02]

Because people have built long wooden boats. And we know what happens when the length of any side of a sea going vessel becomes too long. It starts to bend and creak under the pressure of the water. The sides of the boat start to crack and leak. When a wooden boat gets to about 90 meters long it requires metal banding to keep it in one piece, and mechanical pumps to pump out the water comming from the enivitabe leaks. Much longer then that and the vessel is completely unseaworthy. This is not an unsubstantiated opinion. We know what happens with long wooden boats, and we know why it happens. There is a very good reason why no one has ever built a wooden boat the the length described in the Bible. Because boat builders know what would happen if they did.

Again, the ark Noah built is not a boat, and is not shaped like a boat. It was a chest or box, constructed from resinous wood, which would make it water resistant, and overlaid inside and outside with tar. (Genesis 6:14-16) The ark's length-to-height ratio (10 to 1) and length-to-width ratio (6 to 1) were suitable for structural integrity and stability. According to Wikipedia, wooden ships longer than 90 meters have been built and sailed.

 

[Eliu]

@Krok
Hello!
It’s theirnature, of dating methods, to be untrastable, because it’s necessary to knowstarting amount of mother element to make calculations, and no one knows them.Noone also knows other initial conditions. They are all assumptions… chosenassumptions.
Plus,different method, different result. It does not help.
Also, 3centuries lava formations “dated” millions of years, are speaking forthemselves. Have to repeat: if mistakes are so great on objects of known originage, how can we trust dating on objects of unknown origin date? Simply, it’snot trustable, anything else but for faith in a model and in a method. With noabsolute base.
For Argonnot be present in crystals. You say I’m stupid. That’s ok. But biotite iscontained in rocks. K-Ar method is used, also, to date rocks.
You say noone can use K-Ar method to date “young” rocks.
But how doyou know that rocks are old or young without dating them?
If a rockis young and I don’t know it’s young, should I use K-Ar on it or should I not? Itseems something philosophical. Simply, it’s circular reasoning. It’s assumedthat rocks are all old, if no one has seen their formation. But it’s anunproved assumption, not true just saying it.
So, K-Armethod can be used on young rocks. So, avoiding circular reasoning.
And I’malso sure the problem of “excess argon” regarding biotite, and the “recalibration”needed to fit age into the evolutionary model. So, which absolute? If there iszero Argon at the formation, of course it should be an absolute method. But itis not.
For dinosaur fossils and C14, there are made dating results, more than one, without contamination.
Say that C14 method can’t be used on dinosaur fossilbecause we ALREADY know their age WITHOUT dating them, is circular reasoning,again.
God bless you.

 

[rusra02]

No reason to believe the oceans boiled? You are aware that impact generates heat, yes? Given the volume and rate of water falling within the short period of time....

Do you dispute this?

No human alive today can fully understand the effects of the global Deluge. Dramatic climactic changes apparently occurred rapidly, fast-freezing animals in some locations that were formerly quite warm. The topography of the earth experienced similar dramatic changes. If all the oceans had boiled, all sea life would have been destroyed, would it not? The Bible tells us that all creatures on the dry ground perished, not all sea life. (Genesis 7:22)

​

​

 

[Noaidi]

...Dramatic climactic changes apparently occurred rapidly, fast-freezing animals in some locations that were formerly quite warm.

Can you expand on this please? How do you know this?

If all the oceans had boiled, all sea life would have been destroyed, would it not? The Bible tells us that all creatures on the dry ground perished, not all sea life. (Genesis 7:22)

Which brings me back to my point - how could the oceans NOT have been affected by such a deluge?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No human alive today can fully understand the effects of the global Deluge.

I'm certain they could, and I'm also certain such a massive event would leave some evidence behind. Considering evidence of regional flooding is relatively easy to find, evidence of a global flood should be literally everywhere.

Dramatic climactic changes apparently occurred rapidly, fast-freezing animals in some locations that were formerly quite warm.

Sources?

The topography of the earth experienced similar dramatic changes. If all the oceans had boiled, all sea life would have been destroyed, would it not? The Bible tells us that all creatures on the dry ground perished, not all sea life.

Any evidence that all creatures on dry ground suddenly perished at any moment in history?

 

[averageJOE]

Again, the ark Noah built is not a boat, and is not shaped like a boat. It was a chest or box, constructed from resinous wood, which would make it water resistant, and overlaid inside and outside with tar. (Genesis 6:14-16) The ark's length-to-height ratio (10 to 1) and length-to-width ratio (6 to 1) were suitable for structural integrity and stability. According to Wikipedia, wooden ships longer than 90 meters have been built and sailed.

So you are suggesting that a "wooden box covered with tar" is capable of surviving a violent storm at sea, one of which is cablable of carving mountains, and sustain the lives of humans and animals?

No human alive today can fully understand the effects of the global Deluge. Dramatic climactic changes apparently occurred rapidly, fast-freezing animals in some locations that were formerly quite warm. The topography of the earth experienced similar dramatic changes. If all the oceans had boiled, all sea life would have been destroyed, would it not? The Bible tells us that all creatures on the dry ground perished, not all sea life. (Genesis 7:22)

Why do you presume humans are stupid?

 

[Noaidi]

The Bible tells us that all creatures on the dry ground perished, not all sea life. (Genesis 7:22)

If we are quoting the bible, let's get a bit more detail in:

Gen 7:4 "and I will wipe from the face of the Earth every living creature I have made."

Gen 7:23 (the passage immediately following the one you gave) "Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out; human beings and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the Earth."

Both of these clearly state that your god's intention was to kill everything, not only those organisms on land (Gen 7:23 backs that up by listing humans and animals and the creatures that move on land).

 

[outhouse]

If we are quoting the bible, let's get a bit more detail in:

Gen 7:4 "and I will wipe from the face of the Earth every living creature I have made."

Gen 7:23 (the passage immediately following the one you gave) "Every living thing on the face of the Earth was wiped out; human beings and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the Earth."

Both of these clearly state that your god's intention was to kill everything, not only those organisms on land (Gen 7:23 backs that up by listing humans and animals and the creatures that move on land).

I wonder if he wiped out the animals because they were polytheist??

 

[gnomon]

I find it interesting that flood stories are incredibly absent from most cultures. Though, most cultures were absorbed and overtaken by other cultures but hey......who's counting.

 

[Krok]

@Krok Hello!
It’s theirnature, of dating methods, to be untrastable,....

Nonsense. Where the application of dating methods overlap, they give very similar answers.

... because it’s necessary to knowstarting amount of mother element to make calculations,

No it isn't. You repeating a lie won't turn that lie into the truth.

... and no one knows them.Noone also knows other initial conditions.

Unfortunately for you, we do know basic chemistry. Don't reflect your lack of knowledge on basic people.

They are all assumptions… chosenassumptions.

Same answer as above.

Plus,different method, different result. It does not help.

Lying again won't turn your lies into the truth.

Also, 3centuries lava formations “dated” millions of years, are speaking forthemselves.

Only a very dishonest or stupid creationist will attempt to use the K/Ar method on young rocks. They know they will get an inaccurate reading before they even do it.

Have to repeat: if mistakes are so great on objects of known originage, how can we trust dating on objects of unknown origin date?

And I repeat, only very dishonest or very stupid creationists will even attempt to do K/Ar dating on young rocks.

Simply, it’snot trustable, anything else but for faith in a model and in a method. With noabsolute base..

Luckily your opinion is of no importance. It's what can be demonstrated is what counts.

For Argonnot be present in crystals. You say I’m stupid. That’s ok. But biotite iscontained in rocks. K-Ar method is used, also, to date rocks.

Hey, don't lie again about what I said. I said that Ar can't part take in the formation of the biotite crystals and therefore can't be incorporated in the crystal lattice of biotite crystals at formation of those crystals. Basic chemistry. Easy, really.

You say noone can use K-Ar method to date “young” rocks.

The manufacturers of the equipment we use say that. They provide very good reasons for it. Technological constraints.

But how doyou know that rocks are old or young without dating them?

Easy, if you date a biotite crystal by, for example the K/Ar method, and you get a young age, you know that the date is inaccurate. After that you try a more appropriate method on that crystal, for example Ar/Ar dating, which is accurate from 700 years onwards.

If a rockis young and I don’t know it’s young, should I use K-Ar on it or should I not?

Get a geologist to work out the relative dating of that rock before you act foolishly and want to waste your money. The scientific community will laugh at you and call you a fool, clown or worse, a creationist.

Itseems something philosophical. Simply, it’s circular reasoning.

Don't confuse philosophy and the natural sciences. They're not the same.

It’s assumedthat rocks are all old, if no one has seen their formation. But it’s anunproved assumption, not true just saying it.

Please stop lying. We've got a wonderful science called geology, you know. Mining companies can't operate without it.

So, K-Armethod can be used on young rocks. So, avoiding circular reasoning.

Again, nothing circular abvout it. If you use the K/Ar method to date young rocks, you are stupid.

And I’malso sure the problem of “excess argon” regarding biotite, and the “recalibration”needed to fit age into the evolutionary model.

Excess Ar is not in the crystal lattice of biotite crystals. Excess Ar occur in the form of air and fluid inclusions in the crystals. Completely different from the crystal lattice.

So, which absolute? If there iszero Argon at the formation, of course it should be an absolute method. But itis not.

Unfortunately for you. it is, as there's zero Ar in the crystal lattice at formation of biotite crystals. I don't understand what you're saying here, in any case. Are you implying that because we can't weigh trucks on your bathroom scale, all our methods of determining the weight of anything is inaccurate?

For dinosaur fossils and C14, there are made dating results, more than one, without contamination.

I think some creationist has been sucking this out of his thumb and then you repeat the lie...

Say that C14 method can’t be used on dinosaur fossilbecause we ALREADY know their age WITHOUT dating them, is circular reasoning,again.

Err, no. Please don't lie. You can't date dinosaur fossils with the Carbon dating method, because 1. the carbon has been replaced by other minerals in fossils2. Even if there is still carbon left, carbon dating is only accurate to 70 000 years maximum. After that it's inaccurate. Other methods are more appropriate.

God bless you.

May the FSM touch you with one of his Holy noodly Appendages. May you lie a bit less after that.

 

[fantome profane]

Again, the ark Noah built is not a boat, and is not shaped like a boat. It was a chest or box, constructed from resinous wood, which would make it water resistant, and overlaid inside and outside with tar.

I understand about the shape of the ark. Please don't think I am ignoring this because I am unaware of it or don't understand it. I am ignoring it because it makes no difference. The long side of the boat will experience great strain and stress from the water, the size, shape or ratio of the other sides makes no difference. And no amount of tar is going to help you when the boards start cracking and comming apart.

According to Wikipedia, wooden ships longer than 90 meters have been built and sailed.

Just as I said in a previous post. People have built long wooden boats, and therefore they know what happened when they put them in water. Take a good look at that Wikipedia page you mention, it will confirm what I have told you. Wooden boats that get up to about 90 metres will require metal supports to keep them in one piece under the tidal stress. At this size they also tend to leak and require constant mechanical pumps. I have already said all this. Look at that wiki page and it will confirm it. Yes 90 metre long boats are seaworthy under these conditions. But that is just 90 meters. Keep reading and see what happens if you get longer than that. Read for yourself what happens to boats 100 meters, 110 meters, 120 meters long. The ark, even at the smaller calculation, was supose to be much longer than that.

 

[rusra02]

I understand about the shape of the ark. Please don't think I am ignoring this because I am unaware of it or don't understand it. I am ignoring it because it makes no difference. The long side of the boat will experience great strain and stress from the water, the size, shape or ratio of the other sides makes no difference. And no amount of tar is going to help you when the boards start cracking and comming apart.

Just as I said in a previous post. People have built long wooden boats, and therefore they know what happened when they put them in water. Take a good look at that Wikipedia page you mention, it will confirm what I have told you. Wooden boats that get up to about 90 metres will require metal supports to keep them in one piece under the tidal stress. At this size they also tend to leak and require constant mechanical pumps. I have already said all this. Look at that wiki page and it will confirm it. Yes 90 metre long boats are seaworthy under these conditions. But that is just 90 meters. Keep reading and see what happens if you get longer than that. Read for yourself what happens to boats 100 meters, 110 meters, 120 meters long. The ark, even at the smaller calculation, was supose to be much longer than that.

There is no way to confirm what you are saying. As stated previously, no one has built an Ark to the specifications Noah was given by God. Further, the Bible is silent on the details of how the Ark was constructed, so recreating an Ark matching Noah's would be impossible today. Therefore, speculating that the Ark could not survive the Flood is simply that, mere speculation.
But there is something else to consider: The Bible states that God "did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others." (2 Peter 2:5) Those who claim the Ark could not survive the Flood do not take into account that God kept Noah and his family safe. I believe the same God who kept the three hebrews safe from the superheated furnace of Nebuchadnezzar could also insure that the ark would weather the global Deluge. (Daniel 3:19,27)