How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Audie]

Hi.

I would appreciate this seriousness in all matters and topics pertaining to a great many subjects in this great forum.

However, in respect to Your ideas - Don't You realize that the Dendrochronology topics could be a very unstable and deceptive focus of study.

For example, the tree rings (also called growth rings) are studied and they are implied and believed to the exact or near to the year that they were formed in order to analyze atmospheric conditions during different periods in history.

But this process completely ignores and fails to address the Biblical topics and data that records and details the idea that a completely different environment and lifespan existed for all of life. Adam, for example, would have fewer wrinkles and a different bone structure as He aged because His lifespan was much longer and it was a different environment and condition.

Please, remember that if one reads, the Biblical topics are explaining all of this - how that the rainbow in the sky appeared after the flood as a sign and a new promise - where before, there was never a rainbow, never any clouds in the sky. The lighting, atmosphere, ambiance, radiation and harmful suns rays before the flood and the very seasons were not the same as before the flood.

Please understand that there had never, ever been any RAIN topic or rain topical weather before the flood.
As we see here in - Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
And here in - (Gen. 7:4,12). The original earth and in the topics of The Garden Of Eden we see that the earth was watered by streams, rivers, and mist instead of by rain.

It is a very high possibility that the earth was possibly surrounded by a topical “firmament” or canopy of water, in the topical atmosphere creating a greenhouse effect on the earth’s climate.

The Hebrew word describing the topics of CLOUDS are not even mentioned whatsoever in the manuscripts up until the time after the flood. This Hebrew word is H 6051 עָנָן ‛ânâ - aw-nawn'- Meaning a cloud (as covering the sky), that is, the nimbus or thunder cloud: - or cloud (-y).

The Bible first details this information in Genesis 9:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Here, after the flood, suddenly we begin to see the maximum life expectancy of humanity dropped. The average age of the average death is a recorded data that suddenly is 120 years in average and Noah was already 600 years old when the floodwaters were on the earth. (Genesis 7:6)

Could You agree that if the Biblical account of all of these other topics, plus many, many more topics are all true and real and factual, that this could explain why that many studies in Dendrochronology are in conflict with a wide range of many other topics relating to the Bible as a topical range topic?

Please understand that I do not consider the subject of Dendrochronology to be a preaching of anything or any sort and that my response is not in any way or manner done with the assistance of a preacher. It is my personal study and inquiry and study based on the Biblical manuscripts. . Please tell me what You think and don't be afraid to speak Your mind and I personally don't mind if You contact a preacher.
Just don't mention it in the forum because it may cause a problem.

Ok guy, I called you on a phony claim about everything
flooding at once, now you are off through the treetops,
treerings.

Code 3. Take responsibility for your phony baloney
or forfeit any trace of respect.

And hopefully, nobody will respond to anything
you say till you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps, but I would think that the fact that an assumption is self-serving hardly justifies the assumption.

That is not the only reason. One must remember that Christians believe in salvation. If their version of God lies then there is no reason to believe the salvation story. No guarantee of heaven if one follows the rules. That is why so many Christians steadfastly deny that God can lie.

Now granted an omnipotent God that lied could have flooded the Earth and then covered up his error in embarrassment. But that sort of God is hardly worth worshiping.

 

[Audie]

That is not the only reason. One must remember that Christians believe in salvation. If their version of God lies then there is no reason to believe the salvation story. No guarantee of heaven if one follows the rules. That is why so many Christians steadfastly deny that God can lie.

Now granted an omnipotent God that lied could have flooded the Earth and then covered up his error in embarrassment. But that sort of God is hardly worth worshiping.

Oh tosh. He cleaned up all sign for lo, hath he not, proof of God
would'st be Manifest upon the Earth; wherein it should come to
pass that Faith loseth its lustre, be cast verily down as a worthless
garment.

 

[starsofirelight]

Thanks for responding.

However, In order to continue and have a deeper, serious real discussion with fact-based conclusions, - Am I to be expected to personally go about providing a set of data and facts for all of the other possibilities pertaining to these existing records that have been cross-checked with other methods of dating that explain Your great theories. ?

I would forever be filling in a tremendous amount of data that is inconclusive, immanent and subjective to other preconceived conditions, layered and couched within and compiled upon other preconceived conditions in a circle string theorem, as the forum dives and thrashes about into changing convulsive, spasmodic subjects and terms.

I can not continue to deliberate a cohesive pattern of communication if You do not define anything.

Please conclude Your idea of the ring data cross-checking with other methods of dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for responding.

However, In order to continue and have a deeper, serious real discussion with fact-based conclusions, - Am I to be expected to personally go about providing a set of data and facts for all of the other possibilities pertaining to these existing records that have been cross-checked with other methods of dating that explain Your great theories. ?

I would forever be filling in a tremendous amount of data that is inconclusive, immanent and subjective to other preconceived conditions, layered and couched within and compiled upon other preconceived conditions in a circle string theorem as the forum dives and thrashes about into changing convulsive, spasmodic subjects and terms.

I can not continue to deliberate a cohesive pattern of comunication if You do not define anything.

Please conclude Your idea of the ring data cross checking with other methods of dating.

If you make a claim you need to find a reliable source that supports it, or merely admit that you are relying on myth.

We can date objects with several different methods. They tend to support each other. Your claims will be essentially reduced to "God lied" sooner or later with your approach.

If you want to deny all of science, though that makes your presence here using technology based upon that science rather hypocritical, then you might as well do so now.

By the way, there is no "debate". At this point there is only correction of your beliefs that were shown to be wrong over 200 years ago.

 

[Audie]

If you make a claim you need to find a reliable source that supports it, or merely admit that you are relying on myth.

We can date objects with several different methods. They tend to support each other. Your claims will be essentially reduced to "God lied" sooner or later with your approach.

If you want to deny all of science, though that makes your presence here using technology based upon that science rather hypocritical, then you might as well do so now.

By the way, there is no "debate". At this point there is only correction of your beliefs that were shown to be wrong over 200 years ago.

If you are going to let him skip past his falsehood about everything
going underwater at once, you are doing no bettrr than he.

Im putting him on ig and you can join him.

 

[starsofirelight]

Please, at least explain the existence or any results of the ring data cross-checking with other methods of dating that is counter to
the Biblical data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are going to let him skip past his falsehood about everything
going underwater at once, you are doing no bettrr than he.

Im putting him on ig and you can join him.

Don't worry, I won't.

 

[Audie]

Please, at least explain the existence or any results of the ring data cross-checking with other methods of dating that is counter to
the Biblical data.

Last chance. Take responsibility for your falsehood
about "the only way..." and quit trying to smokescreen
with new topics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, at least explain the existence or any results of the ring data cross-checking with other methods of dating that is counter to
the Biblical data.

Please, don't say "Biblical data". Trying to dress up a pig is rather disgusting. Tree ring data is correlated with known historical events. It is double checked with C14 dating, it is double checked with lake varves. Also care is taken with which trees to use. Oak has been found to be a very reliable species with very few if any false growth rings. Birch on the other hand tends to easily get an extra growth ring here or there. As a result it is not used in dendrochronology.

Here is an article from a Christian source and even it says that the claim of multiple tree rings in one year does not hold water:

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

 

[Audie]

Please, don't say "Biblical data". Trying to dress up a pig is rather disgusting. Tree ring data is correlated with known historical events. It is double checked with C14 dating, it is double checked with lake varves. Also care is taken with which trees to use. Oak has been found to be a very reliable species with very few if any false growth rings. Birch on the other hand tends to easily get an extra growth ring here or there. As a result it is not used in dendrochronology.

Here is an article from a Christian source and even it says that the claim of multiple tree rings in one year does not hold water:

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

There you go encouraging him to skip off thro
the treetops.

 

[starsofirelight]

.
The only information that is gleaned from the particular posters who do not like the Bible throughout the forum, seems to be just / only a continual message that expresses their dislike for the Bible and a clownish attempt to shut down any fact-based information that goes beyond a one-step theological mindset.

Why not join physicalness and reality in discussing a deeper detail about The God of The Bible who wants His creation to live clean lives and live healthily and be responsible with a family-oriented lifestyle as the number one goal for all.

This is the main focus of all of the RULES of the Bible were all about and why the FLOOD was allowed to destroy the savage, violent and horribly perverted and evil humanity that had begun to self-destruct and destroy itself. It is sad, I agree and understand where You are coming from but the storyline explains that the Creator had given mankind a free will and the choice to make their own personal decisions before the flood happened. Even a preacher { Noah } was sent.

Even II Peter 2:5 The Bible simply just calls Noah a “preacher of righteousness.” Noah was a man of morals and goodness and preached AND proclaimed the message of being and living righteously.

If mankind had followed Noah and followed the rules, the world would be a better place today.

I know the world is a cruel place but there is no denying and we all know that even with the horrible and terrible and brutal flood story of the Bible - We know, and can not deny that humanity has a choice and is free to make its choices in free will. I do not need to believe the Bible to be true in order to see that its message shows a deity trying to intervein, and help the humans to have better lives and make the right choices.

 

[Audie]

Tweet tweet, insults and preaching, but,
no ability to stand up and honestly admit
having told a falsehood.

I hope nobody will say another word to you
till you go back and take some responsibility
for yourself. Like grow up.

If that is too cruel, go away.

 

[Audie]

Re this topic, something we see over and
over and over is:

A creationist will come sailing in, all full
of some collection of misinformation
and assorted falsehoods about science.

Before long he will be challenged on some
of them. Some challenges will get a response,
others will not.

Not all, but many as in the above example,
will just go on tossing out more of their
pratts, or, "off through the treetops".

WILL not stand still to be quizzed on
something like, in this case the assertion
that the "only way" that marine fossils
could exist inland is a world wide flood.

My contention is that his behaviour is
not part of a quality debate forum, and is
to be discouraged.

Label it Code Three, and insist that the
person deal with their falsehoods, not
just go off on a new topic.

I think that is entirely fair, and a desirable
thing. Perhaps our hero of the op does not,
but I hope all the "evos" will cooperate.

 

[ecco]

.
The only information that is gleaned from the particular posters who do not like the Bible throughout the forum, seems to be just / only a continual message that expresses their dislike for the Bible and a clownish attempt to shut down any fact-based information that goes beyond a one-step theological mindset.

I don't dislike the bible. I think its writings provide an excellent insight into the mindset of people 2000-4000 years ago. I think the writings and beliefs of its current ardent followers provides an excellent insight into the mindset of some people today.

This is the main focus of all of the RULES of the Bible were all about and why the FLOOD was allowed to destroy the savage, violent and horribly perverted and evil humanity that had begun to self-destruct and destroy itself.

The thing that is savage, violent and horribly perverted and evil is steps taken by your God to correct his mistake.

 

[Audie]

I don't dislike the bible. I think its writings provide an excellent insight into the mindset of people 2000-4000 years ago. I think the writings and beliefs of its current ardent followers provides an excellent insight into the mindset of some people today.


The thing that is savage, violent and horribly perverted and evil is steps taken by your God to correct his mistake.

Gonna be an enabler here, so he can just say things,
and then skip to the next and the next topic?

That said, we do note the thing about "people who do not like the bible"
is another crock-o-crap.

It is certainly not my big fav., but I doubt anyone is going to just say
"I dont like it".

Which of course is far far far from the topic of the thread, which is
that there was no flood.

The remote- viewing diagnosis that we who do not read the book the
way he does are people with something wrong with them, they
"dont like" his wonderful book is really rather disgusting.

But enough new falsehoods.

Id really like to see him take responsibility for one I
picked out from his OP, which he has been dodging
ever since.

 

[Jose Fly]

God, if there is a God,
PLEASE
Send us a good creationist
If there is one.

That's like wishing for a "good flat-earther". The very nature of their position precludes any "good" advocates.

 

[Audie]

That's like wishing for a "good flat-earther". The very nature of their position precludes any "good" advocates.

Well, of course that is so, which is why only
god could supply one.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There are many different interpretations of the Noah's Ark myth in Genesis. From my experience all of them can be shown to have never occurred. My only assumption here will be that it God exists he does not lie.

Of course I can't demonstrate a concept to be in error until people clearly state their beliefs. So please tell us what you mean by the Floor and we can discuss your version.

You are making quite an assertion with no support

I go with the Biblical account. All the mountains under all heavens covered. Noah's boat remarkably nautical and many modern and historical ships benefitted from using the design ratios. Ark of Gilgamesh nought at all. Cube shaped boat would roll all over the ocean like a volleyball.

Noah ark - nautical
Ark of Gilgamesh - nought at all
You heard it here first.

 

[Hawkins]

Sorry, that is not "physical evidence". Physical evidence is something that one can touch, feel, see etc.. It is not stories.

What evidence do you have for what you ate today but a year ago? If you don't have the evidence, nor do the 7 billion humans on earth (in terms of only one meal in life among today's humans on earth, not historically)

In reality evidence is a scarce thing. Humans don't rely on such a scarce thing to determine a truth. The nature of history is that it is the recording of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001% overall human activities, mostly reserved for famous figures and events. Out of the scarce amount of the recorded, only 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of them can actually backed with evidence (if any).

That said. In a nutshell, you don't know what you are talking about!

It is actually out of humans capability to gather evidence, say about what you ate before, that they have to trust with faith on what have been written down (about what you ate that day by an eyewitness) to get to know what could possibly happen. That's how our history was written.

The next point is, how much humans understand catastrophes ever occurred? Using your science as a reference, within 4.5 billions of years how many kinds of catastrophes ever occurred? How many of them are known to humans?

Flood is just a human term used to describe a scenario, or else we may not be able to even write down the scenario. But is it really a flood? Since when you saw a flood covering the top of a mountain? It may be a catastrophe never made known to humans, which Noah had to describe it as a "flood" or else nothing can be written down.

The line of reasoning used in this thread is thus "because you can't present the evidence of what you ate in your life time, such that you can't claim that you ever ate anything". However plausible is your "logic"!