Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Salvador]

At least thanks for providing a counter argument w/ references....other than just ranting and raving!



As per your link, on pg. 729, it says "> 4,000 years of age."
And that the oldest known tree is "Currey Tree," which is close to 4900 years of age.

You're close, but you misrepresented it. (Hey, it's your link.) Why?
It's neither here nor there, though.... it still fits an interpretation of the Flood timeline.

As far as the genetic/generational evidence, I'll get back to this.
I know genetics are pretty accurate in discovering from where a person's ancestors originated, but as to how far back the lineage goes, I'm sure there are problems and discrepancies with that. Genetics is a relatively new field, I know you're aware of this.

According to the Bible, 422 years elapsed from the time of Noah's Flood until the birth of Abraham.
( Genesis 11:10-32 ) 529 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 333 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2 ) Thus, the Biblical date Noah's Flood allegedly destroyed all life outside Noah's Ark was no earlier than 2400 BC.

A now living four-thousand-nine-hundred-year-old tree would have been more than 500 years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

The bristlecone pine in California's White Mountains measured by Tom Harlan to be 5062 years old, would have been way over 600 years old years old at the time of Noah's Flood.

These trees are living monuments that there was never any globally catastrophic flood 4,400 years before now as claimed in the Bible.

 

[metis]

Twice you mentioned "real science" -- real science requires observation. This has verified small changes in organisms. Micro evolution. Anything beyond that, is not real science, but rather, philosophy and guessing.

You obviously have not done the research. And let me show that by posing a question to you: Using a reputable scientific source, such as Scientific American, National Geographic, the NAS, etc. find evidence for the magical wall that supposedly stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro=evolution". No opinions-- just the facts.

Betcha can't do it because it simply does not exist. But why not give a try anyway, Old Chap, and let's see what you can find. Good luck.

Oh, btw, if you were supposedly correct, try and find some geneticists that say "macro-evolution" could not possibly happen because I have yet to run across one yet.

Rejecting known science, and the basic ToE is just than, cheapens your religion or denomination because it's rejecting reality. And even common sense should tell you that all material objects appear to change over time and genes are material objects.

 

[metis]

Read again, please. Dr. Hong found the vessel seaworthy while enduring 100-ft. waves.

Not the one in Amsterdam Harbor as computer models show it to be too unstable to even take a chance. Last time I heard they haven't tried it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The next time I see you presenting evolution as a fact I'm going to remind you of this sentence.

Actually? Evolution is a fact. There also happens to be a lovely Scientific Theory which explains the fact of evolution.

But, evolution IS a fact: proof is easy, too-- annual flu shots prove beyond any doubt, that viruses evolve. This proving the fact of evolution.

Another one in a similar vein: Bacteria that have evolved to be resistant to even the strongest antibiotics.

Still another example: Dog breeds. If evolution was NOT a fact? This never would have happened.

Still another example: corn. Look at the original strains-- barely edible, tiny grains mostly cob. Modern evolved corn is so evolved, some strains require humans to affect the pollination cycle-- the species has evolved beyond natural pollination.

Evolution is a fact. In spite of the intense wishes (prayers) of (some) True Believers™

Perhaps they invoked the wrong pronunciation of the name "Jesus" -- you know how picky wish-spells can be...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the one in Amsterdam Harbor as computer models show it to be too unstable to even take a chance. Last time I heard they haven't tried it.

I read one article about it touring, but to do so the Ark was to be loaded onto an even larger boat due to that instability. I will have to see if I can find the article again.

Found it, a fun read:

Noah’s Ark Crashes in the Netherlands [WATCH]

 

[ChristineM]

how did he do that?

Would be difficult considering an ark of the dimensions specified is impossible to build even today unless modern materials such as steel and sealants not available 4.5k years ago were used.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"Repeating the facts"?! You don't repeat facts....you repeat abuses.

And it's the "facts", as you've been told them.

How sad for you: You think actual reality is somehow ... abusive?

Wow... how do you manage to get through a drive-through without throwing a hissyfit? Nevermind. I don't want to know...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My bad,.....I didn't make specific reference to the bristlecone pine in California's White Mountains measured by Tom Harlan to be 5062 years old, making it the oldest known tree in North America and the oldest known individual tree in the world.

Reference: Pinus longaeva (Great Basin bristlecone pine) description - The Gymnosperm Database

The Gymnosperm Database

Pinus longaeva

D.K. Bailey 1970

Interesting! (FYI, if I added correctly, tree is 5,068 yrs.old, now. According to their assessment, w/o cutting it down.) These dendrochronologists say the tree is “quite healthy”, leading me to ask, “Why haven’t other, older trees been discovered, say at near death, ie., unhealthy?
Because, although Bible chronology is mostly understood using Ussher’s timeline, more recent interpretations put the Flood at a little beyond that time, around 5,235 yrs.ago. Based on the Septuagint and recent connected discoveries.

1975 -- A Marked Date?


But then, it could be that dating a tree so old, is only accurate post-mortem (the tree, that is. Lol)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would be difficult considering an ark of the dimensions specified is impossible to build even today unless modern materials such as steel and sealants not available 4.5k years ago were used.

But the Ark was built of "Gopher wood" ( I wonder if that means it came from Minnesota?). That along with magic bitumen works every time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting! (FYI, if I added correctly, tree is 5,068 yrs.old, now. According to their assessment, w/o cutting it down.) These dendrochronologists say the tree is “quite healthy”, leading me to ask, “Why haven’t other, older trees been discovered, say at near death, ie., unhealthy?
Because, although Bible chronology is mostly understood using Ussher’s timeline, more recent interpretations put the Flood at a little beyond that time, around 5,235 yrs.ago. Based on the Septuagint and recent connected discoveries.

1975 -- A Marked Date?


But then, it could be that dating a tree so old, is only accurate post-mortem (the tree, that is. Lol)

One does not need older trees that are still living. What can be found are overlapping trees that push the dates back using dendrochronology to 12,400 years before present without a flood.

Even with your friendlier date there was no flood.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....viruses evolve.

I never said they didn’t, an obvious strawman.

But guess what? It’s still a virus. (Or do you think it’s growing fins, or some other appendage?)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why do you think that is some sort of contradiction? Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. The theory of gravity explains gravity. Are you going to try to claim that gravity is not a fact? By the same standards evolution is a fact. Though science does not "prove" things as abused by so many creationists if one goes by the legal standards of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution has been proven. I get tired of creationists that abuse terms they do not understand. There is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and no scientific evidence at all for creationism. Or perhaps I should say that no creationist seems to be able to produce any scientific evidence for their beliefs. Understanding those basic concepts is key to understanding how to debate this topic. Of course if one understands those terms one quickly realizes that there is no more debating against the concept of evolution than there is debating against the concept of gravity.

well... now that you mention it... the theory of gravity isn't all that universally accepted.

There is the competing theory of Intelligent Falling.

https://www.theonion.com/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-intellig-1819567984

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said they didn’t, an obvious strawman.

But guess what? It’s still a virus. (Or do you think it’s growing fins, or some other appendage?)

And you are still an ape.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I never said they didn’t, an obvious strawman.

But guess what? It’s still a virus. (Or do you think it’s growing fins, or some other appendage?)

Saying "it's still a virus" is akin to saying about a whale, "it's still a sea mammal".... only worse.

No... saying "it's still a virus" is akin to saying of a dog, "it's still not a vegetable"

Please. Learn the terminology before posting.

... and you wonder why people keep criticizing what you post...

 

[Skwim]

So...doesn't the Bible present the Flood as a phenomenon caused by God? (It wasn't natural.) But then, you propose He did nothing else? He wouldn't protect the arks contents, during and after? (One of the last paragraphs in the OP discusses this.)

I don't propose god did anything. Heck, as an agnostic I wouldn't even propose god exists.

Regarding the animals....don't you believe in evolution? I do, to an extent. Those animals would be all that was needed, for the diversity within the families and genera we see today.

What animals are these? Are you proposing that within 3,500 years the 35,000 species of animals evolved into 7,770,000 species? A 22,200.00 percent increase?

We're not told, but Jehovah could've induced a state of hibernation or torpor, to keep them calm.

Hell, he could have made them all water proof and let them swim in the sea for a year instead of having Noah make a boat for them. There are all kinds of "could'ves," but without the Bible saying so, they're worthless speculations.

We have precedent in the Bible, other accounts, describing God keeping people and animals from eating.

Gotta tell ya, as an agnostic who doesn't give the Bible much time of day, the accounts of fantastic, and at best improbable, events don't mean bupkis. Although I am fascinated by the logic, or lack thereof, that Christians employ in their beliefs.

You give Jehovah very little credit.

Actually, outside of the Biblical drama I don't give him any credit for anything.

But at least you discussed some of the OP evidence. Thanks for that.

I can always discuss Biblical issues just as I can discuss issues within Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. No difference.

.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't propose god did anything. Heck, as an agnostic I wouldn't even propose god exists.


What animals are these? Are you proposing that within 3,500 years the 35,000 species of animals evolved into 7,770,000 species? A 22,200.00 percent increase?


Hell, he could have made them all water proof and let them swim in the sea for a year instead of having Noah make a boat for them. There are kinds of "could'ves," but without the Bible saying so, they're all worthless speculations.


Gotta tell ya, as an agnostic who doesn't give the Bible much time of day, the accounts of fantastic, and at best improbable events, don't mean bupkis. Although I am fascinated by the logic, or lack thereof, that Christians employ in their beliefs.


Actually, I don't give him any credit for anything.


I can always discuss Biblical issues just as I can discuss issues within Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. No difference.

.

.

Perhaps you should point out by his "logic" the rest of the primates would have been descended from Noah.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I can always discuss Biblical issues just as I can discuss issues within Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. No difference.
.

Ought to start a thread of the merits of being in Slythern versus Hufflepuff.

I bet there is, right now, some forum where this very issue is under extremely heated discussion.

Including calling other people "poopyhead". (no, not you Revoltingnest, not this time... )

 

[ChristineM]

But the Ark was built of "Gopher wood" ( I wonder if that means it came from Minnesota?). That along with magic bitumen works every time.

A wood that doesnt exist, has properties inconsistent with wood, and for a wood so durable and hard its surprising that no fragments are in existence today. After all you can but genuine pieces of jesus cross in almost any church bring and buy sale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A wood that doesnt exist, has properties inconsistent with wood, and for a wood so durable and hard its surprising that no fragments are in existence today. After all you can but genuine pieces of jesus cross in almost any church bring and buy sale.

I do remember Mark Twain commenting in one of his books on travel in Europe and the Middle East that he saw enough pieced of the "true cross" and enough nails from it to build Noah's Ark. Perhaps the material exists backwards in time

 

[ChristineM]

I never said they didn’t, an obvious strawman.

But guess what? It’s still a virus. (Or do you think it’s growing fins, or some other appendage?)