Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[dyanaprajna2011]

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)

What's worse, mere speculation, or blind faith?

 

[gnostic]

I know!
It's always "pseudo" when there is the slightest possibility that the Bible is right.
Always.

The whole thing with the creation and the flood in Genesis, hence Biblical Creationism in general, is based on pseudoscience, because many of the claims are not based on VERIFIABLE scientific evidences, but based on FAITH in belief in ancient religious texts alone.

Do not confuse evidences with faith.

 

[Eliu]

The whole thing with the creation and the flood in Genesis, hence Biblical Creationism in general, is based on pseudoscience, because many of the claims are not based on VERIFIABLE scientific evidences, but based on FAITH in belief in ancient religious texts alone.

Do not confuse evidences with faith.

Evolutionist model is verifiable as Creationist models.
Both sciences or both faiths.
Both them are attempts for explain origin af all. But they are studies of past, both not verifiable.
And what shoul gives only a small bit of reason to Bible is always "pseudo", I know.
I wonder... if "water is wet" is written on the Bible, then water becomes dry?
Matter of faith.
God bless you!

 

[Eliu]

@Krok
Hello!
Of course I'm stupid. I can tell it for myself.
But type of clothes is not important. What is important is to believe in objective teachings.


The matter is as said at the start. Dating needs to know the starting quantity of “mother element”, and confronted to measured quantity of mother element, with the quantity of “daughter element”, we obtain, with calculation, the age of the object we are dating.
In this case, the method is K-Ar. The object is biotite crystal.
Starting quantity (at time of rock formation) of “daughter element” Argon, is zero, as you said.
But this is just an assumption. No one verified it at the time of rock formation.


But is this assumption correct?
It's been said that there was no Argon at time of rock formation (solidified rock). It's been said that Argon formed after that, and Argon couldn't escape from the crystal lattice for the spaces among molecules were smaller than Argon atoms, so no Argon atoms escaped and we can consider K-Ar methods as absolute, at least for biotite.
Correct. If all is working like this, in all cases of biotite.


But we can observe that it has been experimented that Argon presents great solubility in minerals and lava flows. In starting concentrations that can date 500 million years , just at rock formation. Why say there is a starting concentration of “zero Argon”, if experiments as shown it's possible that starting concentration be more than zero? So, we can't be sure that all pre-existing Argon flew out from lava. It's just an assumption, not an absolute. Just a matter of faith in the model. Argon particles should have been “captured” during rock formation.
If the starting condition was this (and it's possible), we can't be sure of the date result, for we can't be sure of the starting quantity of mother element. The same for dating methods.


For not speaking about problems on constancy of decay rates... but this is another story.


So, the problem of excess argon and “recalibration” of results is still standing up.


Again. C14 isotopes were found inside fossil dinosaur bones. No contamination. Age about 20-30 thousands of years. You know that if C14 is found inside a fossil, that fossil shouldn't be alive more than 100 thousands of years ago. It was found. Say one thing or another thing doesn't change this.


C14 was also found in measurable quantities in coal and diamonds. We know what this means.


Returning on circular reasoning.
“You can't use C14 method on dinosaurs [diamonds] [coal].”
“Why?”
“Because it has millions of years”.
It has millions years just for evolutionary model. That model is not an absolute.
“Millions of years” is just an assumption. It has to be tested.
Recent lava flows were tested with K-Ar method. Result was greater of 4 zeroes, as we know. Not small error. The problem was the lava flows were young?
The date of those lava flows was known.
But, while measuring with K-Ar method other lava flows, with unknown date of origin, obtaining the same results? How can we be sure that those lava flows were recent or old? Just by deciding it by ourselves?
It's a matter of assumption, not an absolute, to say that young objects cannot be dated.
If we don't know if the object is young or old, how can we decide if use the K-Ar method (or other methods)? Simply, there is no answer.
If one wants to rely on radiometric dating methods as they were absolute... that's ok.
But they are not. It's a matter of faith.


If being a creationist means being stupid, I can just say: “of course”.


God bless you.

 

[outhouse]

there is no scientific debate about the accuracy of current dating methods in geology PERIOD

there is only refusal of this data by some due to faith alone.

 

[averageJOE]

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)

And there it is. The "magic" argument.

 

[Krok]

@Krok In this case, the method is K-Ar. The object is biotite crystal. Starting quantity (at time of rock formation) of “daughter element” Argon, is zero, as you said. But this is just an assumption. No one verified it at the time of rock formation.

Luckily basic chemistry verifies it for us.

But is this assumption correct?

Are you trying to deny the whole natural science of chemistry here?

It's been said that there was no Argon at time of rock formation (solidified rock).

No it hasn't. Please stop lying about it. What has been said was that Ar can't be incorporated in the crystal lattice of biotite when biotite crystallises. Argon is a noble gas.

It's been said that Argon formed after that,....

No, basic chemistry demonstrates that all Ar in the crystal lattice of biotite is formed by radiometric decay of K.

.. and Argon couldn't escape from the crystal lattice....

The only way for Ar to "escape" from the crystal lattices would be if the crystal itself decays. It forms other minerals, with different chemical formulas, then.

.. for the spaces among molecules were smaller than Argon atoms, so no Argon atoms escaped and we can consider K-Ar methods as absolute, at least for biotite.

This doesn't make sense. The Ar is bound in the crystal lattice of the biotite and can't just "escape". For it to escape another crystal has to form. One which is not biotite.

Correct. If all is working like this, in all cases of biotite.

This also doesn't make sense.

But we can observe that it has been experimented that Argon presents great solubility in minerals and lava flows.

Not in crystal lattices.

In starting concentrations that can date 500 million years , just at rock formation.

Nonsense. At crystallisation the Ar in the crystal lattices will be zero. You keeping on repeating lies won't turn your lies into the truth.

Why say there is a starting concentration of “zero Argon”, if experiments as shown it's possible that starting concentration be more than zero?

Unfortunately for you, chemistry demonstartes that the starting concentration of argon in the biotite crystal lattice at crystallisation is zero. Please don't lie about "experiments" showing the opposite.

So, we can't be sure that all pre-existing Argon flew out from lava.

But we can be sure that there's absolutely no Ar in the crystal lattices of biotite at formation.

It's just an assumption, not an absolute.

It certainly is an absolute. Basic chemistry. Your lies won't turn your wishful thinking into reality.

Just a matter of faith in the model.

Please don't reflect your way of doings thing on other people. People like you thrive on wishful thinking, other people, like me, thrive on obtaining knowledge.

Argon particles should have been “captured” during rock formation.

Again, Ar is not "captured" in the crystal lattices of biotite crystals ar crystallisation. Your wishful thinking and lies about it won't turn it into the truth.

If the starting condition was this (and it's possible), we can't be sure of the date result, for we can't be sure of the starting quantity of mother element. The same for dating methods.

Again, yes we can. Your lies will never turn into reality. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat them.

For not speaking about problems on constancy of decay rates... but this is another story.

Why, are you going to lie about that as well?

So, the problem of excess argon and “recalibration” of results is still standing up.

The only thing that is consistent is that you consistently lie.

Again. C14 isotopes were found inside fossil dinosaur bones. No contamination. Age about 20-30 thousands of years. You know that if C14 is found inside a fossil, that fossil shouldn't be alive more than 100 thousands of years ago. It was found. Say one thing or another thing doesn't change this.

Again, I you are lying about this, too. And I know about Dr. Mary Schweizer and her work on the "soft tissue" found in the dinosaur fossils. Creationists tend to lie about everything in connection with that, too!

C14 was also found in measurable quantities in coal and diamonds. We know what this means.

Yes, I know about those lies from creationists, too!

Returning on circular reasoning. “You can't use C14 method on dinosaurs [diamonds] [coal].” “Why?” “Because it has millions of years”. It has millions years just for evolutionary model. That model is not an absolute. “Millions of years” is just an assumption. It has to be tested.
Recent lava flows were tested with K-Ar method. Result was greater of 4 zeroes, as we know. Not small error. The problem was the lava flows were young? The date of those lava flows was known. But, while measuring with K-Ar method other lava flows, with unknown date of origin, obtaining the same results? How can we be sure that those lava flows were recent or old? Just by deciding it by ourselves?
It's a matter of assumption, not an absolute, to say that young objects cannot be dated. If we don't know if the object is young or old, how can we decide if use the K-Ar method (or other methods)? Simply, there is no answer. If one wants to rely on radiometric dating methods as they were absolute... that's ok. But they are not. It's a matter of faith. If being a creationist means being stupid, I can just say: “of course”.

You just keep on repeating the same lies you wrote down and I have answered earlier here. It seems like you can't do anything but lie. It really is all you have.

God bless you.

May the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Appendages and may you lie less after that.

This reminds me so much of a quote by John Derbyshire, because it's so true:

"It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."

 

[Noaidi]

And there it is. The "magic" argument.

Yes, I was waiting for the "god did it" response to come along too.
Pity. It's a poor way to end a discussion.

 

[gnostic]

Evolutionist model is verifiable as Creationist models.
Both sciences or both faiths.
Both them are attempts for explain origin af all. But they are studies of past, both not verifiable.
And what shoul gives only a small bit of reason to Bible is always "pseudo", I know.

That's because you have a mistaken assumption, as do many other creationists, EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution only deal with life THAT ALREADY EXIST, and have nothing to do with the origin of the very FIRST LIFE. Evolution don't deal with how life began with first living organism, from inorganic.

Until you understand this, your claim about evolution is misleading and utterly false.

If you seriously want to deal with or argue against the scientific study on the origin of life, then look at ABIOGENESIS, not evolution.

 

[Eliu]

@gnostic

Hello!
Evolutionis about origin of ALL. It tries to explain origin of matter from Big Bang, somolecules, so passages from molecules to cell and from cell to man. Evolutionis not concerning only “cell to man”. Abiogenesis is part of evolution.
Abiogenesis,as we know, is not possible.
Alsoevolution, while speaking only for life “that already exists”… is not possible.Evolution is based on appearing of new (non pre-existing) complex andfunctional biologic structures.
It neverhappens. Appearing of biologic complex (more complex than vehicles and planes&#8230and functional structures, simply don’t happen. So, evolution doesn’t happen.
Variationhappens. Adaptation happens. Natural selection happens (we know). But they don’t add anything. Theycause modification of already existing structures, loss of them, extinction ofalready existing species… but what really happens, doesn’t add anything. So,evolution doesn’t happen.
Sciencestudies what really happen.
Believingthat something that cannot scientifically happen should happen is… believing ina miracle. A matter of faith, not science.
Evolutionistsand Creationists both believe in a miracle.
ButCreationists admit it.
God blessyou!

 

[Eliu]

@Krok

Hello!
Basicchemistry we can observe shows it. But no one was there to see rock formation.And there is the possibility of influences, like the Argon diffused by solubility in moltenlava, also showed by experiments. The 2 possibilities ar real, both.
I don't understand why recall “soft tissue” matter.
For C14, itwas found. Saying repeatedly “no” doesn’t change.
I'm sure that if Bible says “Water is wet”, I will sometimes hear “Water is dry”. Nothingnew.
God blessyou.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolutionis about origin of ALL. It tries to explain origin of matter from Big Bang, somolecules, so passages from molecules to cell and from cell to man. Evolutionis not concerning only “cell to man”. Abiogenesis is part of evolution.

No, it isn't. This is extremely basic:

Abiogensis: the origin of living organisms.
Evolution: the process through which populations of living organisms change over time.

We have to explain this dozens of times seemingly every day. Please, do not join the ranks of the uninformed.

Abiogenesis,as we know, is not possible.

Says who? How could they know?

Alsoevolution, while speaking only for life “that already exists”… is not possible.

Garbage. Evolution has already been observed.

Evolution is based on appearing of new (non pre-existing) complex andfunctional biologic structures.

No, it isn't. It's based on the mutation over time of pre-existing biological structures.

It neverhappens. Appearing of biologic complex (more complex than vehicles and planes…)and functional structures, simply don’t happen. So, evolution doesn’t happen.

Again, garbage. That's not what evolution says. Please educate yourself on evolution.

Variationhappens. Adaptation happens. Natural selection happens (we know).

And what do we call the process of how they happen? Evolution.

But they don’t add anything.

Again, garbage. This has been observed.

Theycause modification of already existing structures, loss of them, extinction ofalready existing species… but what really happens, doesn’t add anything. So,evolution doesn’t happen.

So you're saying "modification of existing structures" cannot produce new structures? Again, you really need to educate yourself on the basics of evolutionary biology.

 

[Eliu]

@Immortalflame
Hello!
-Evolutionistworldview is based on (please, we all know&#8230 Big Bang – Molecules formation –Planet and Stars formation – first cell formation from molecules – to man fromthe first cell, gaining, over time, complex and functional structures, allcoordinated. This is evolutionist worldview.
We have totell it completely, not “half mode”: abiogenesis means non-driven origin oflife from non-living matter, precisely the first cell. Believe it’s possible isbelieve that cars, planes, watches and bycicles can origin in a non-driven way.Objects that are less complex than the first (theorical) cell.
Faith isnot to be questioned. It’s possible to believe in anything. But reality,please, is something else.
-Also, thefirst (theorical) cell didn’t have bones, hands, muscles, brain, eyes and soon. Evolution means appearing and adding of new non-pre-existing complex andfunctional structures as these. As the example before, this doesn’t happen, inreality. Ad “evolution” has never been observed.
Adaptationwas observed. Natural selection was observed. Evolution was not observed.
-Anexample: antibiotics resistance. Dozens of time I had to explain this… It doesn’tconcern evolution. It concerns modification of proteins, already existingproteins, and survival of modified bacteria, but the survived bacteria won’tresult in more complex bacteria. Just this.
But for “halfmode” way of explaining, usually it’s not explained that the survivingantibiotic resistant bacteria, put together with the rest of the startingcolony of bacteria, in normal environmental condition, will result weaker thanthe starting colony of bacteria. What is seen is not evolution. It’s theopposite.
God blessyou.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

-Evolutionistworldview is based on (please, we all know&#8230 Big Bang

No, it isn't.

Firstly, evolution isn't a worldview - it is a field of scientific research. Secondly, the big bang (cosmology and physics) has nothing to do with evolution (genetics and biology).

– Molecules formation –Planet and Stars formation – first cell formation from molecules – to man fromthe first cell, gaining, over time, complex and functional structures, allcoordinated. This is evolutionist worldview.

... Most of which has nothing to do with evolution, apparently.

We have totell it completely, not “half mode”: abiogenesis means non-driven origin oflife from non-living matter, precisely the first cell. Believe it’s possible isbelieve that cars, planes, watches and bycicles can origin in a non-driven way.

No, it isn't. We know how cars, planes, watches and bicycles are made. They are non-organic, non-reproducing objects. Life is an organic, naturally replicating system. Just because one is designed doesn't mean the other one is - that's circular reasoning.

Faith isnot to be questioned.

Yes it is.

-Also, thefirst (theorical) cell didn’t have bones, hands, muscles, brain, eyes and soon. Evolution means appearing and adding of new non-pre-existing complex andfunctional structures as these. As the example before, this doesn’t happen, inreality.

Actually, yes it does. Mutations in genetics have been observed to develop new features in populations all of the time.

Ad “evolution” has never been observed.
Adaptationwas observed. Natural selection was observed. Evolution was not observed.

That's an oxymoron. Adapatation is the result of evolution, and natural selection wouldn't exist if evolution were incorrect.

-Anexample: antibiotics resistance. Dozens of time I had to explain this… It doesn’tconcern evolution. It concerns modification of proteins, already existingproteins, and survival of modified bacteria, but the survived bacteria won’tresult in more complex bacteria. Just this.

Congratulations. You just described evolution.

But for “halfmode” way of explaining, usually it’s not explained that the survivingantibiotic resistant bacteria, put together with the rest of the startingcolony of bacteria, in normal environmental condition, will result weaker thanthe starting colony of bacteria. What is seen is not evolution. It’s theopposite.

How, exactly, is the process of an organism devloping new traits through survival "the opposite" of evolution?

 

[rusra02]

And there it is. The "magic" argument.

Belief in God is not belief in magic. True faith is evidence-based. (Hebrews 11:1)
I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Belief in God is not belief in magic. True faith is evidence-based. (Hebrews 11:1)

And yet...

I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

...you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

So, you don't know anything about evolution, then?

 

[gnostic]

Evolutionis about origin of ALL. It tries to explain origin of matter from Big Bang, somolecules, so passages from molecules to cell and from cell to man.

Evolution is biology. The Big Bang is astrophysics.

There are world of differences.

 

[johnhanks]

Belief in God is not belief in magic.

Arguable, but the point being made was that modern-day defenders of the flood myth are forced to paper over the glaring inadequacies of the biblical story by invoking additional supernatural intervention over and above what Genesis tells. How did such an inadequate vessel stay afloat? God saw to it. How were all the animals fed? God saw to it. But if all that additional magic was needed, what was the point of the ark in the first place?

I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

You would argue that, yes. No-one schooled in biological science would.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

The Flagellum Unspun

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak.

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

Your objections to evolution are not really scientific since your knowledge of evolution is nowhere near good enough to adequately critique it, and you certainly are not able to critique the article by Ken Miller that I mentioned. For you, it is simply a matter of insisting that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true no matter what science says. How is it that you are an expert on which parts of the Bible are literally true?

Are you proposing that all scientists should presuppose that the Bible is true, and try to force science to agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible? If not, what are you proposing that has anything to do with science?