Flood Evidences — revised

[Subduction Zone]

What? Amazing.
First,

Then....


If the dating is “more accurate” now, the dates accepted prior were less accurate, I.e., unreliable.

Even saying “more accurate,” doesn’t mean reliable.

60% is better than 50%....But it’s nothing I’d bet on.

Classic Black and White fallacy again. Yes, they are reliable. They corrections were less than 3%. That is not much of an error. For example the error of Oase1 was perhaps one thousand years. That may sound a like a lot to you, but it is right about 40,000 years old:

An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor

Like I implied, you did not check out any of the dates to see how much the correction was. You should have taken the hint and avoided further embarrassment.

 

[metis]

You said a Global Flood wasn’t needed; from the Bible (which describes the event we’re debating), I showed you why it was.

But it really wasn't needed, and why would God purposely commit massive genocide to large amounts of children especially? That would make God more immoral than any person on the planet.

Again, it's the moral teachings that make sense, thus not a God who's a genocidal maniac.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But it really wasn't needed, and why would God purposely commit massive genocide to large amounts of children especially? That would make God more immoral than any person on the planet.

Again, it's the moral teachings that make sense, thus not a God who's a genocidal maniac.

Oh, I see the reason for your objection, and it makes sense …. if there was not going to be a resurrection . But there will be.

I’m pretty sure we have different beliefs on the afterlife, but don’t you think they went to Heaven? Don’t you believe that is so?

See, IMO, they will be given life again! Acts of the Apostles 24:15

I appreciate your responses. You take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I see the reason for your objection, and it makes sense …. if there was not going to be a resurrection . But there will be.

I’m pretty sure we have different beliefs on the afterlife, but don’t you think they went to Heaven? Don’t you believe that is so?

See, IMO, they will be given life again! Acts of the Apostles 24:15

I appreciate your responses. You take care.

How does that help you? The rules on who is saved and who is not are rather clear and anyone before the time of Jesus appear to be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

 

[metis]

Oh, I see the reason for your objection, and it makes sense …. if there was not going to be a resurrection . But there will be.

That doesn't relate to what I wrote, namely that having God supposedly causing the "Flood" is a terribly immoral act of genocide.

I’m pretty sure we have different beliefs on the afterlife, but don’t but you think they went to Heaven? Don’t you believe that is so?

According to the Gospel of Jesus, it doesn't make a difference what I may or may not believe about heaven, but what makes the HUGE difference is very simply this:
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Notice the underlined sentence because that is crucial, and especially notice the word "all".

Have a nice weekend.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

Grief, I did miss that link on C14! I don’t know how, but I did. (I actually forgot to post 2 links, in post #730. I followed up the other in post 734.).
Sorry...

Here it is, on C14 dating...
Carbon dating, the archaeological workhorse, is getting a major reboot

Lyell’s “the present is the key to the past,” simply doesn’t fit.
Even from his to ours, there've been several global natural events affecting carbon in our atmosphere! The 1883 Krakatoa eruption is one that comes to mind. The present Global Warming we're struggling with, is another. The Icelandic volcanoes are another.
Recalibration will be ongoing.

I'm amazed that you finally admitted to a mistake! Wow...took you long enough after insisting several times that you did post the link, even though you had two people telling you it wasn't there and took me quoting you for you to finally realize you made a mistake! That's a strong indication of how you live your life...believing you are largely incapable of error. That aside, let's now go on to the article which you originally claimed that Carbon dating was largely inaccurate and originally posted an article from 30 years ago to try and prove your point. Now you post this one, but I don't think you actually read it or comprehend it. This article is talking about a re-calibration of the techniques to make it even more accurate than ever before. I guess you weren't aware, but with Radio Carbon dating, it has never, ever given an exact date, just a range within a few thousand years depending upon what's being dated, some materials you can get it within hundreds of years. Either way, this article doesn't at all say it's inaccurate, or unreliable, or anything like you said. This article supports radio carbon dating as a legitimate method, that's about to become even more reliable. I mean the very first sentence says "Radiocarbon dating — a key tool used for determining the age of prehistoric samples — is about to get a major update." You saying this article means it's "unreliable" just is very dishonest. It's like saying "You hit the target 80% of the time...your accuracy is bad". I don't know where you are getting your 50% or 60% figures from...but it isn't from the article. If they are getting dates within 1,000 years of something that's 60,000 years old, or 100 years for something that's 2,000 years old, that's 95-98% accurate. You said it's unreliable...by what basis do you claim this, other than religious intolerance for the truth?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wow, another post I overlooked….

Okay, let's see if @Hockeycowboy has learned anything over the years. Here is a picture that refutes your claims about the Grand Canyon and the mythical Flood of Noah. Can you tell us how it does this?

This is not the topography of the GC. It’s not in the GC. Where is it? Utah?

 

[GardenLady]

I’m pretty sure we have different beliefs on the afterlife, but don’t you think they went to Heaven? Don’t you believe that is so?

Wait... so it's okay to kill innocent people because, hey, they'll go to heaven?
Or just okay for God to kill innocent people?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, another post I overlooked….

This is not the topography of the GC. It’s not in the GC. Where is it? Utah?

It is a tributary to the Colorado River. Which formed the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon has some embedded meanders as well. They are just not as clear.

As a result it still refutes your Flood myth.

Edit: Almost forgot. Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

 

[tas8831]

Hey - remember when I caught Hockey plagiarizing? And it was not until 2 days after I caught him that he added links.... Must be nice to get those second chances...

Are you Tim Lovett? Because someone with that name wrote those EXACT, SAME passages here:
Thinking Outside the Box: Size and Shape of the Ark

What is a little plagiarism among zealots, I guess....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wait... so it's okay to kill innocent people because, hey, they'll go to heaven?
Or just okay for God to kill innocent people?

Throughout history, even w/o God’s interference, children have always suffered the consequences of their parent’s bad choices.

I’m just glad the One who killed, also has the power to restore life, innocent or not. Which will happen for most everyone. Acts of the Apostles 24:15

Would you rather the children fend for themselves & eventually starve?

RIP - until the Resurrection - is better than the pain of a slow death by starvation.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Edit: Almost forgot. Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

Thanks. My wife and I put that on our vacation list; we’d like to see it soon!

It is a tributary to the Colorado River. Which formed the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon has some embedded meanders as well. They are just not as clear.

I did some searching. It’s the 383-mile-long San Juan River running through the 6-mile-long Goosenecks.

Entrenched meanders are easy to see….they’re entrenched, basically deep. There are none inside GC. The “Loop” isn’t within its boundaries.

As a result it still refutes your Flood myth.

No, it doesn’t. You forget, I’m not a YEC, so I expect many different geologic mechanisms to have played a roll in 1000-ft-deep Gooseneck’s formation. At one time, it apparently had a higher gradient, than now.
GeoSights: The Goosenecks of the San Juan River, San Juan County – Utah Geological Survey

I make no claims that the Flood formed Goosenecks… it could have been formed millions of years prior to the Flood, by a river ancestral to the San Juan.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How does that help you? The rules on who is saved and who is not are rather clear and anyone before the time of Jesus appear to be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Oh, now you’re providing your exegesis on something you don’t even believe in?
Actually if I had that errant POV, I might not believe it either.

Fortunately, I apparently had better teachers. (What hell is— no fire; things like that.)

You could learn what I learned too - it really has strengthened my trust in the Bible - but I don’t think you’d appreciate it right now…maybe later.

As Jesus stated, we need to be humble & teachable, like a child.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, now you’re providing your exegesis on something you don’t even believe in?
Actually if I had that errant POV, I might not believe it either.

Fortunately, I apparently had better teachers. (What hell is— no fire; things like that.)

You could learn what I learned too - it really has strengthened my trust in the Bible - but I don’t think you’d appreciate it right now…maybe later.

As Jesus stated, we need to be humble & teachable, like a child.

Dude, why does my current state of belief matter? You might need a refresher course on your own mythology. Jesus supposedly died for your sins. Saving someone would be rather difficult if Jesus had not died yet.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Saving someone would be rather difficult if Jesus had not died yet.

Not at all! It covers everyone descended from Adam&Eve.

Even you…you will have a Resurrection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all! It covers everyone descended from Adam&Eve.

Even you…you will have a Resurrection.

You must be in a rather weird sect. Most require a belief in Jesus.

And no, dead is dead. Neither you nor I will be ressurected.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You must be in a rather weird sect. Most require a belief in Jesus.

Yes, you’re right. And, coming to know his Father also. (John 17:3) But obviously, throughout history, the vast majority of mankind hasn’t.
Even those that have had the opportunity, Jehovah knows the misleading influences that people were and are confronted with, this Earthwide confusion of which course to follow, whether they recognize it or not.
Contrary to what most think (more misled influence), the dead “know nothing”; they are “sleeping.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14) When they’re resurrected, they won’t have to face all this confusion and suffering again....it will be gone. (Revelation 21:3-4) Then, they will be given the opportunity to learn about Jehovah & Jesus, while knowing (being taught) the facts with accuracy.

I’m sure you’re familiar with Matthew 6:9-10, the Lord’s Prayer; praying for “Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on Earth”....if we’re to *pray* for it, that means God’s will is not happening yet.
It’s amazing that many haven’t grasped this simple truth. Observing the cruelty going on in this world, should prove that His will / purpose isn’t being done.

As to why Jehovah God hasn’t stepped in until now: The issues of Jehovah’s sovereignty over man’s ability to self-rule & the question of His honesty, which were raised in Genesis 3, are still ongoing, but they will soon be settled. Men are “ruining the Earth.” Revelation 11:18. The “appointed time” is coming.

IMO.

 

[Sheldon]

the Flood was the cause of Earth’s mountains reaching such great heights. (With the underground waters spewing upward, the land would, by necessity, settle downward.)This would mean the high mountainous ranges we have today, like the Alps, the Himalayas, the Andes, and others, did not exist before the Flood; they are relatively young in formation.

The Himalayas are one of the world's youngest mountain ranges, at about fifty million years old. Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller.

 

[Sheldon]

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

What design, you would need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability.?

This answer pretty much destroys the pseudoscience you linked:

I started by attempting to look up Dr. Seon Hong’s credentials online, but was unsuccessful, although a scientist of his seniority is usually quite easy to find online. I found a creation.com article that purportedly describes engineering studies undertaken by staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon (including S.W. Hong and S.Y. Hong) and supported by the Korea Association of Creation Research, Taejon. Presumably this is the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Daejeon.

The Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering would not have committed serious resources to studying a very general description of a biblical boat, so this presumably was a homework assignment for the authors as associates of the Korea Association of Creation Research. They state:

• They know little about the hull form and the structure of the Ark
• Because little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull, they relied on descriptions of remains supposedly found on Mt Ararat by several explorers.
• They know the hull material as given in the Bible
  They are alone in this, as numerous biblical scholars and others have sought unsuccessfully to establish what “gopher wood” is, with some suggesting cypress and others suggesting reeds. The JewishEncyclopedia.com was certainly unable to help.
• Based on Genesis 7:20, they assumed the draught of the Ark to be half the depth of the Ark
  This assumes they correctly understood Genesis 7:20 to refer to the draught of the Ark, but that is unclear.
• They calculated displaced tonnage of the Ark as 21,016 tonnes on the assumption of the density of sea water.
  They do not explain why they used the density of sea water for a fresh-water flood.
• they used 1/50 scaled models to confirm their theoretical analysis

From this I establish that more of the parameters for the ship consist of speculation and guesswork than the authors were prepared to say: hull form and structure; hull material (cypress, reeds or other); inappropriate and unscientific reliance on descriptions of remains supposedly found on Mt Ararat; an interpretation of Genesis 7:20. Within those limitations the authors may well have established that a ship as simulated by them was superior to the control options, but their various assumptions mean this can not be transferred to a biblical Ark.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What design, you would need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability.?

This answer pretty much destroys the pseudoscience you linked:

In the interests of accuracy, he is Dr. Seok Won Hong, I found out after posting the OP.
But that changes nothing...

The Ark was seaworthy.
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’